Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Union of South Africa (Racial Segregation)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the British delegate on the special Political Committee of the United Nations Assembly voted on the resolution appealing to the Government of the Union of South Africa to revise its policy on racial segregation in the light of the principles of the United Nations Charter; and what were the votes for and against the resolution.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the delegate of the United Kingdom cast his vote when the General Assembly on 26th November passed a resolution deploring that the Union of South Africa had not responded to the United Nations requests to modify its policies of racial discrimination.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the British delegate voted at the recent debate of the Political Committee of the United Nations Assembly upon the racial segregation policy of the Union of South Africa.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): The United Kingdom representative on the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations voted on 1st November against the resolution. The voting was 59 in favour, 5 against and 10 abstentions. The United Kingdom representative voted against the resolution in plenary also, on 26th November. The vote was 59 in favour, 6 against and 14 abstentions.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large part of our population will be ashamed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that a British delegate should not vote against the practice of apartheid in the South African Union? Further, is the hon. Gentleman aware that even though rights of national sovereignty may go to a certain point, when they go to the point of repudiation of human liberties as now practised in South Africa it is time that our Government made their position clear?

Mr. Harvey: With regard to the first point, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. The vote was not on the subject of apartheid at all, but on the question whether the United Nations should debate a subject within the competence of the Government of South Africa.

Mr. Brockway: It was on apartheid.

Mr. Harvey: With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, the position of Her Majesty's Government is perfectly clear.

Mr. J. Johnson: As I happened to be in the building in New York on that day, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the speech of our delegate not merely shocked the coloured people present, but also the delegates of the white delegations present who were thoroughly scandalised by the speech, which could have come from any South African?

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but it is not ours.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I myself have some experience of having, very reluctantly, to abstain occasionally for technical reasons from voting on issues of this kind? It seems to me to be quite a new thing actually to vote against an issue of this kind in a company, I think I am right in saying, consisting almost entirely of other colonial Powers. Is that not a very damaging thing?

Mr. Harvey: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's position and I am not altogether surprised that he abstained, but our view is that we should be definite in these matters, and that is what we have been.

Nuclear Tests (Resolutions)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate voted on the Japanese and Indian resolutions, respectively, in the United Nations Political Committee, with regard to the suspension of nuclear tests.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The United Kingdom delegate voted against both resolutions, as they called for the suspension of nuclear testing in advance of a disarmament agreement.

Mr. Brockway: But does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that public opinion, not only in this country, but as expressed all over the world, wants to see the end of nuclear tests and, if necessary, wants to see them ended irrespective of other disarmament discussions?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says, nor do I think that the votes of the United Nations bear him out.

Refugees (United Kingdom Contribution)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amounts have been subscribed by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the years 1955, 1956, and 1957, respectively; and what proportion of these amounts was allocated to the relief of Arab refugees in Jordan and Gaza.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Her Majesty's Government have contributed to the relief budget of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees £1,607,143 in 1955, and a similar sum in 1956, and in 1957 £1,642,858 to date. The payments are made to the Agency and are not specified as being for operations in particular countries.

Mr. Brockway: While recognising that this country and the United States contribute approximately 90 per cent. of this fund, may I ask the hon. Member whether he appreciates the necessity of maintaining the fund, particularly in view of the new opportunities for resettlement of this refugee population?

Mr. Harvey: Of course we accept that principle, but the hon. Member has made

the point clear. We are in fact the second largest contributor and it is up to other people to look at these matters as well.

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects to be able to make a statement concerning the contribution of Her Majesty's Government to the funds of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the understanding that the funds will be used for resettlement movements.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Subject to Parliamentary approval, Her Majesty's Government will contribute up to £100,000 in 1958. Of this sum £80,000 will be made available as an outright contribution, and a further £20,000 will be paid provided Governmental contributions to the Fund reach a total of $3.25 million. But the United Kingdom contribution will not necessarily be devoted solely to resettlement.

Miss Burton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this contribution will be of great service to the work which is being done by Mr. Lindt, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Is he also aware that the High Commissioner would be very grateful for any additional help which we could give, especially before Christmas, to enable the organisation to carry on and complete its work?

Mr. Harvey: We certainly understand the position, but Her Majesty's Government are the second largest regular contributor to U.N.R.W.A.

Disarmament Commission

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to secure the resumption of work by the Disarmament Sub-Committee.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the official communication to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that it does not intend to take part in future discussions in the United Nations Disarmament Commission, he will make a statement as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, including the formulation of new disarmament proposals.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Disarmament Commission is to be expanded to 25 members after 1st January. I hope that the Soviet. Government will reconsider its refusal to attend the Commission's meetings. As regards new proposals, Her Majesty's Government believe that the Western Powers' proposals for partial disarmament, which were recently endorsed by 57 countries of the United Nations, offer a sound basis for further negotiation.

Mr. Fletcher: Do I understand from that that the Minister will do everything possible to ensure that the Disarmament Sub-Committee is able to resume its sessions? Does he agree that it offers the best hope of reducing world tension?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that there is a very important rôle to be played by an enlarged Disarmament Commission, but I also favour the continuance of the Disarmament Sub-Committee.

Mr. Bevan: Are these discussions to be held in the open?

Mr. Lloyd: The discussions of the Disarmament Commission, yes. They always have been.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the importance of ending the present deadlock, may we take it that Her Majesty's Government will be willing to participate in discussions with the Soviet Government in order to seek to persuade them once again to take their place at the meetings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee? May we further take it that the so-called Western Plan would be only a basis for discussion, and that there is no question of Russia's having to take it or leave it?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary, I think that considerable efforts of persuasion have already been made in the United Nations during the debates. I personally hope very much that this Russian attitude, that they will not attend meetings of an enlarged Disarmament Commission, is only a temporary one. So far as the other part of the supplementary question is concerned, I have said that the Western proposals offer a sound basis for further negotiation.

Technical Aid Programme

Mr. Moss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the recent United States proposal to expand the United Nations Technical Aid Programme up to 100 million dollars and include therein a special project fund; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am, with my colleagues, giving this matter careful and sympathetic consideration. I am not in a position to say more at present.

Mr. Moss: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind the argument used by the United States representative, Mr. Judd, that expanded technical aid has become necessary, in any case, because of the need of newly independent countries, and that a special project fund is needed because of the experience and information it could give on research, training and surveying?

Mr. Lloyd: I have that very much in mind.

Special Fund for Economic Development

Mr. Moss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the United States policy of supporting the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development in principle subject to savings accruing from a general disarmament agreement; and to what extent that is also the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United Kingdom delegation at the United Nations Assembly has been informed of the resolution of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe that member Governments should work for the early establishment of a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development; and what instructions he has given to the delegation concerning the action they should take when this matter is debated in the United Nations Assembly.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have considered the views of the United States in this matter; and I have informed the United Kingdom delegation to the United


Nations of the resolution of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the creation of the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development remains generally unchanged. The issue is not one of principle but of finding the money. This matter is however closely linked with that of the United States proposal for expansion of the United Nations Technical Assistance Programme which we are still considering sympathetically, as I have just stated.

Mr. Marquand: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that when all the other nations of Europe are in favour of going ahead with this plan, he might—although he may disagree with suggestions coming from this side of the House—take seriously some suggestions which have come now from the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, and which are known to be shared by most of the European Governments?

Mr. Lloyd: I take very seriously suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman makes on this matter. The issue here is not one of principle. This country is already spending something like £75 million a year on economic assistance in one way or another to under-developed countries. We have very heavy burdens to bear and the point here is the question of finding the money.

Mr. Marquand: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if he can get the good will of other European nations, he can get additional money by enlisting the support of Scandinavia, and other European countries.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not dispute that fact, but in stating our own position we have to have regard to existing commitments.

European Refugees, Hong Kong and China

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet decided what contribution Her Majesty's Government will make towards the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concerning European refugees in Hong Kong.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the position of European refugees in Hong Kong and China is difficult, and that delay in dealing with their transportation will have serious repercussions on them and whether he will consider favourably the provision of funds for the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees to help the resettlement of these refugees.

Mr. Ian Harvey: My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the situation to which the hon. Members refer, and is still considering with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of a contribution from Her Majesty's Government towards the resettlement of these refugees.

Mr. Healey: While thanking the Joint Under-Secretary of State for this assurance that a negative decision has not yet been reached, may I ask him to bear in mind that about 2,000 refugees are already waiting to be moved and another 20,000 are expected, and that the World Council of Churches, which is at present responsible, has run out of funds? Will he take an urgent decision on this matter?

Mr. Harvey: I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman's figures are quite correct, but we appreciate the nature of the problem. The question is one similar to that outlined by my right hon. Friend just now—the question of resources.

Emergency Force

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the responsibility for the United Nations Emergency Force supply line has been allocated by the United Nations to the force itself or to the individual contingents which compose it.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Responsibility for the procurement, storage and issue of supplies required by the force is vested in the commander of the force.

Mr. Craddock: Will the Minister say whether, now that the force has been out there for 12 months, it is functioning as a United Nations Expeditionary Force, and whether the vehicles used and functioning in military equipment bear the proper markings of a United Nations organisation?

Mr. Harvey: That point does not seem to arise out of the Question which the hon. Gentleman put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NILE WATERS

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will initiate a preliminary conference of the users of the Nile waters for the maximum benefit of all peoples through whose territories its waters rise or flow.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Her Majesty's Government are in favour of a conference of the users of Nile waters, but they consider that the time is not yet ripe for such a conference. Much useful preparatory work is being carried out by technical experts in the countries concerned.

Mr. Benn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great interest in this matter not only in this country but also in the United States, that it is a matter which greatly influences the political development of the countries concerned and that it is really time that the Government took the initiative?

Mr. Harvey: I accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. It is a matter of great interest, but not necessarily a question of taking an initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has now caught up with the United States of America in the field of ballistic missiles, he will, at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference, propose the reconsideration of the policy of negotiation from strength and the cold war aims that policy is designed to impose, and propose instead the working out of proposals for negotiation based on a common interest in peaceful co-existence.

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what initiative he proposes to take to ease international tensions and to what extent-Her Majesty's Government's policy is still based on deterrents and the need to negotiate from strength.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: With regard to our relations with the Soviet Union we have no other wish than to live in peace with them. We are working for more trade and for greater contacts between us. We hope that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will take part in the work of the expanded Disarmament Commission. We are ready to discuss any proposals on Germany consistent with the agreed directive of July, 1955.
The purpose of our alliances is not to impose any aims in a cold war, which is none of our making. We remain ready to join in negotiations, whenever they would be fruitful. But we must maintain our own security and that of our partners, as long as the threat to it remains.

Mr. Zilliacus: While I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for going as far as he did in his reply, may I ask him whether he believes that there is any possibility within a foreseeable time of either compelling or persuading the Soviet Government to agree to a solution which would allow Germany to enter N.A.T.O.? Alternatively, did not he himself admit in reply to Questions from myself and other Members on 27th November that a solution could be reached with the Soviet Union on the basis, recommended by the Opposition, of an all-European treaty outside the rival alliances and accompanied by disarmament and withdrawal of forces? Why does not he accept that solution?

Mr. Lloyd: The reason I do not accept that as a solution is that I do not think that it would lead ultimately to the peace and security of Europe. I do not think that in present circumstances such a treaty would be worth the paper it was written on. On the reunification of Germany, I do not despair of the possibility of persuading the Soviet Union to permit Germany the right of self-determination in this matter, always accompanied, as we have promised, by some sort of security assurance to the Soviet Union.

Mr. Turton: Is not any success the Russians may have in perfecting weapons of aggression surely a reason for increasing and not weakening the strength of the North Atlantic alliance?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is perfectly right.

Mr. Bevan: Why should the Soviet Union in this instance rest content with paper assurances if we ourselves do not consider paper assurances to be sufficient? Is not it quite clear that there is no prospect whatever of a united Germany being permitted to enter a Western alliance? Ought not we to seek some other solution to the problem?

Mr. Lloyd: It is implicit in the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question that we also should not accept the paper assurances of the nature suggested by the hon. Member. In fact, there is quite a different set of circumstances. I see no reason why, remembering what the German Chancellor has said about the demilitarisation of Eastern Germany, there should not ultimately be a possibility of a solution along the lines I have suggested.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will observe that he has not answered the latter part—nor, indeed, any part—of my Question, because he has said nothing about any new initiative. The last part of my Question was:
…to what extent Her Majesty's Government's policy is still based on deterrents and the need to negotiate from strength.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whom, in the new circumstances, these deterrents are intended to terrify and whether he is quite sure that we can terrify them more than they can terrify us, and whether he does not think that in the circumstances the proper attitude to all these questions of mutual terror is the attitude of the first Duke of Wellington when he saw the recruits?

Mr. Lloyd: We have to make it absolutely clear that any act of aggression will call forth the ultimate retaliation, the complete retaliation. That is the deterrent—the fact that any aggressor should know that he will be met by the full force of the Western alliance. We have no intention of attacking the Soviet Union and therefore our policy must still be based on the major deterrent.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

United Kingdom's Policy

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the Government's policy on the subject

of Germany is still guided by the declaration of the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Anthony Eden, on 17th November, 1954, to the effect that the real choice lay between anchoring Germany to the West through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or leaving her to drift, with the certainty that she would sooner or later be sucked into the Soviet system.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government still subscribe to the general views on Germany expressed by Sir Anthony Eden during the debate referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Zilliacus: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believes that Germany would be sucked into the Soviet system if not anchored to the West through N.A.T.O., how does he explain the independence of Austria which, after all, did not join N.A.T.O., is neutral and far smaller than Germany? Does not that make nonsense of Sir Anthony Eden's statement?

Mr. Lloyd: The two countries are completely different in their nature, geography, and attitude to world affairs. If the hon. Member would read again the speech of Sir Anthony Eden, even he would derive some benefit.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the development of Soviet nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, the Government will now abandon the policy, stated by the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on 12th December, 1955, of using Anglo-American atomic power through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to exert pressure in order to force the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to give ground in East Germany.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If the hon. Member will re-read the statement to which he refers he will see that my right hon. Friend did not suggest that Anglo-American atomic power should be used to exert pressure on the Soviet Government to give ground in East Germany The point which my right hon. Friend was making was that it was the resistance organised through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation under the cover of the "protecting shield of American atomic power" which had halted the westward march of Communism.

Mr. Zilliacus: Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgotten part of what the then Foreign Secretary—the present Prime Minister—said? It is true that according to HANSARD he began by stating that the military alliance of N.A.T.O. had halted the westward march of Communism under
…the protecting shield of American atomic power. Now the Soviets are halted in the West.… We believe that they may, with steady pressure upon them, be forced sooner or later to give ground in Eastern Germany.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repudiate those atomic power politics to make Eastern Germany safe for Dr. Adenauer?

Mr. Lloyd: What I can do is to read an accurate record of what my right hon. Friend said. He said:
…the westward march of Communism seemed likely to over-run the whole of Europe. This was prevented by the courage and foresight of those statesmen who called a halt and began to organise resistance. This salvage operation was covered by the protecting shield of American atomic power. Now the Soviets are halted in the West. They have even had to give ground in Austria. We believe that they may, with steady pressure upon them, he forced sooner or later to give ground in Eastern Germany. But this temporary stability—for that is what we have in the West—is not the outcome of the bomb alone. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is, of course, primarily a military alliance, but it is more. It has equal political significance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 827.]
I stand by what my right hon. Friend said.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the proposal to supply Western German forces with nuclear equipment.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will oppose at the forthcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organisation conference the giving of nuclear weapons to Germany or any other Power and the allowing of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commanders to use tactical atomic weapons on their own immediate decision.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not think it wise to make a new general statement about proposals for the supply of nuclear weapons to Germany until I have seen the precise nature of any such proposals as may be made.
With regard to the second part of the Question asked by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commanders have no authority to order the use of tactical atomic weapons on their own immediate decision. Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any proposal to alter this state of affairs; the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Foreign Secretary remember that there is a very considerable body of opinion which feels that to establish missile bases in Western Germany, or to construct arsenals for nuclear weapons there, would very seriously jeopardise the prospects of peace without in any way adding to our security?

Mr. Lloyd: I am certainly aware of that point of view, but, as I have said, I should like to see what specific proposals are made. There are as yet no specific proposals.

Mr. Bevan: Are we to understand that no undertaking will be given by Her Majesty's Government permitting this to be done without first informing the House?

Mr. Lloyd: No, certainly not. This is a matter which must remain within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]Certainly it must. Our position in this matter is stated quite definitely in the Paris Treaties. We stand by the Paris Treaties, and there is a certain procedure—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. I have just listened to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) describing a number of my hon. Friends sitting below me, and myself, as "a bunch of Tory clots." May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to cause this grossly un-Parliamentary remark to be withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the remark—and I am rather glad that I did not.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in the middle of giving his reply.

Mr. Lloyd: I said that our position with regard to the matter remained as defined in the Paris Treaties.

Mr. Bevan: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that very considerable apprehension exists in this country about a decision of that sort; that tactical atomic weapons are to be stationed in Western Germany—and no one yet knows what is meant by a tactical atomic weapon; as far as I know, it has not been defined without the repercussions of the position first being discussed by the House of Commons? Surely there is a difference between this sort of weapon and other weapons that we have been putting into the hands of the Germans?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly understand that different views are held of this matter, and they are repeatedly put forward. The Government's position is still governed by the Paris Treaties, that is to say, there is an obligation on the part of the German Government not to seek to manufacture these weapons; but, as regards their possession of these weapons, that is a matter for a majority vote in W.E.U.

Mr. Allaun: Would not the prospects of peace be dramatically improved if the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the offer of Poland and East Germany to forbid nuclear weapons on their own territory in exchange for a similar ban in connection with West Germany? Will not the existence of these weapons immediately upon both sides of the demarcation line increase rather than reduce the tension in Europe?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept what the hon. Member has said. We have to maintain the defensive strength of our alliance.

Oral Answers to Questions — INFORMATION SERVICE REPORTS

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official use is made by his Department of the special information service reports, published at Alderbourne Manor, Gerrards Cross.

Mr. Ian Harvey: None, Sir.

Mr. Iremonger: Is my hon. Friend aware that advertising matter being circulated about these reports says:
This service is used by the agencies of every important Government in the world 
which is an implication that in some sort of way Her Majesty's Government are

committed? In view of the highly undesirable nature of the contents of these documents, can my hon. Friend give a firm assurance that the Government in no way subscribe to them?

Mr. Harvey: I have given that assurance and I have no desire to add to that advertising material.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPE (SECURITY)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now propose to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers the opening of negotiations with the Soviet Government and other signatories of the Warsaw Pact for an all-European security pact to supersede existing regional treaties.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a defensive alliance freely entered into by countries of the West and made necessary by the policies of the Soviet Union. Its replacement by an all-European security pact would not provide these countries with adequate security against aggression.

Mr. Swingler: Is not the Foreign Secretary prepared to take any diplomatic initiative to try to relax the tension in Europe? Is he aware of the anxiety created by the tension which is heightened by the fact that people now know that there are aeroplanes flying over Europe and carrying the hydrogen bomb? Will not the Government take any initiative to try to reduce the tension? Must not some initiative be taken for negotiation between the N.A.T.O. Powers and the Warsaw Pact Powers? What policy for trying to reduce the tension in Europe do the Government have?

Mr. Lloyd: I indicated in an earlier Answer to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) the lines along which I think we can proceed. One thing of which I am certain is that it would be fatal to the prospects of greater security for Europe if we were to weaken the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE

Mr. M. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number at present of established and of unestablished officers, respectively, of the


Foreign Service appointed in the United Kingdom and serving in overseas posts; and the number of such officers in the diplomatic and consular services serving in overseas posts at the beginning of 1939.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The present numbers of established and unestablished staff recruited in the United Kingdom and serving overseas are 1,704 and 329 respectively. The corresponding figures at the beginning of 1939 were 733 and 69.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that information. Will he note that these figures denote a great increase, and will he consider setting up a Departmental or other committee to reduce them?

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that supplementary question. I want to make clear, to begin with, some of the reasons for this increase. Before the war we maintained diplomatic relations with 53 foreign countries; now the figure is over 70. There are now many more international organisations than before, such as United Nations, N.A.T.O., O.E.E.C. and the Coal and Steel Community. The Foreign Office has taken over the Persian Gulf from the old India Office, and maintains certain regional offices. There is a wider range of functions. The Foreign Office is responsible for information and for commercial functions in particular. I may perhaps alleviate my hon. Friend's anxiety if I say that, compared with 1,704 this year, there were 1,888 last year—so it can be seen that we are very anxious to cut down staff where possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Mr. MacDermot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what other countries have made reservations in matters affecting national security in their acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice; and in what terms.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: So far as I am aware, no other countries have made reservations on matters of national security as such. But several have made reservations in terms which are capable of covering national security, either generally or on particular occasions.
However, I would like to remind the House that only a limited number of countries have accepted the Optional Clause jurisdiction, with or without reservations. There is a far larger number of countries, over 50 in fact, which have not accepted it at all and are in consequence not bound to refer any matter to the Court, whether relating to national security or anything else. Such countries are consequently automatically covered as regards national security in respect of any exercise of compulsory jurisdiction by the Court.

Mr. MacDermot: If no other countries have made reservations in matters affecting national security, can the Foreign Secretary explain what he meant when, in connection with this matter, in the debate on the Address he said—explaining the reason for our reservation—
I think that in matters of national security we have to reserve our position when other countries do. When every country in the Soviet bloc does so and when our principal allies do so, we also reserve our position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 474.]
Is it not really the position that the sole reason for this reservation was to prevent the legality of our Pacific nuclear tests, involving the freedom of the high seas, being contested in any court of law anywhere?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the last part of the supplementary question, that was not the sole reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "The major reason."]—as I said in my speech, when I referred to that matter, but when the hon. Member talks about no other countries having made reservations, I would point out that over 50 countries, including all the members of the Soviet bloc, do not accept this jurisdiction at all. As regards our Allies, in my view the United States reservation and the French reservation amount to reservations upon matters affecting national security.

Mr. MacDermot: On that point are not we completely protected from the countries which make no acceptance of the jurisdiction at all by our reciprocity reservation? The fact is that, of all the other countries which accept the jurisdiction of the International Court, we are the only one which has made this reservation, and thus is not it a fact that the reciprocity rule completely protects us


against Iron Curtain countries which have not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction?

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support of our own reciprocity reservation. That is at least a step forward. In regard to the reservations of the other countries I have referred to and I have had regard to the opinion of the distinguished judge—in my view our principal Allies also have a reservation which in fact means that they are reserving the question of national security.

Mr. MacDermot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has reconsidered the terms of Her Majesty's Government's reservation in their acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in matters affecting national security, in particular in the light of the criticisms by Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht in the Norwegian Loans case; and whether he will now withdraw that reservation.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have considered this matter, but I am not prepared at the present time to withdraw this reservation.

Mr. MacDermot: The Foreign Secretary has said that he will reconsider this question. Can he state why he wishes to preserve the position in the present form? Is not it a fact that the only judge of the International Court who has expressed any view on the form of this reservation expressed the view that this makes the whole of our acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction invalid, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider that purely legal aspect of the form of the reservation?

Mr. Lloyd: I am certainly prepared to keep under consideration the legal aspect, abut I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the learned judge's observations, because his criticisms were directed at reservations on matters of domestic jurisdiction. He said that they ousted the jurisdiction of the court altogether. I think that he made only a tentative reference to the United Kingdom reservation on national security. As I read the terms of his opinion, I do not think they imply that he considers this on the same footing as that of a reservation dealing with domestic jurisdiction.

Mt. Younger: Quite apart from the legal objections of the learned judge, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this action on our part was also deplored on political grounds and on the general ground of the prestige of the Court by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his Report to the Assembly this year, and will he reconsider his decision in the light of that as well?

Mr. Lloyd: I am perfectly willing to reconsider this matter on a basis of reciprocity, but I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish the authority of the International Court to be built up on a basis of reciprocity. I cannot accept the position in which a country can take us to court but we cannot take that country to court on a similar issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE YEMEN (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding his recent discussions with the Crown Prince of the Yemen.

Mr. Redhead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as the result of his recent discussions with the Crown Prince of the Yemen, an agreement has now been reached on the demarcation of the border between the Aden Protectorate and the Yemen.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to what I said in answer to a Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) on 27th November.

Mr. Stonehouse: Would the Foreign Secretary agree that his statement last week did not go beyond a general expression of good will, and, in order to avoid misunderstanding on this subject, would he state what were the claims of the Crown Prince in relation to the Aden Protectorate of the Aden Colony and what was the reply to those claims?

Mr. Lloyd: For once I think that a general expression of good will was not a bad thing. So far as the disputes with the Yemen are concerned, it is well known what they are and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by rehearsing them. We did not abandon


our position nor did the Yemenis abandon theirs, but we hope that an atmosphere has been created which will make it possible to pursue a solution.

Mr. Redhead: While I appreciate the nature of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply and expression of good will in this matter, may I ask whether he appreciates that it does not carry us beyond the stage of an expression of hope for the future? Can he give some positive assurance that the initiative will be taken to seek a satisfactory settlement of these long-outstanding problems in a part of the world where these problems are becoming increasingly urgent?

Mr. Lloyd: One definite initiative was the invitation to the Crown Prince to come here where the matter was discussed for the first time with a representative member of the Yemen Royal Family—I think he is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs—in considerable detail, and I think that will be a benefit; at least I hope that it will.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUS OF WOMEN COMMISSION

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will announce the name of the British delegate to the Status of Women Commission for the following three years.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I am glad to state that Miss Ruth Tomlinson has agreed to be the United Kingdom represenative at the next session of the Status of Women Commission. My right hon. and learned Friend has been unable to make an appointment for more than one year as the present United Kingdom term of membership of the Commission expires at the end of 1958.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend accept through me the appreciative thanks of all women's organisations? Is he aware how fully they support Miss Tomlinson's appointment?

Mr. Ian Harvey: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks which, I know, will give great encouragement to Miss Tomlinson.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS (PONSONBY RULE)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Her Majesty's Government consider themselves bound by the constitutional principle announced by His Majesty's Government in 1924 that this House should be informed of all international agreements, commitments and understandings, in addition to treaties requiring ratification.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As I stated on 27th November, the Ponsonby Rule applies only to instruments which require ratification. Mr. Ponsonby made it clear that it did not apply to conventions of a purely technical character which are not subject to ratification.
As regards agreements not requiring ratification but containing matters going beyond the purely technical, Mr. Ponsonby said—and I quote his exact words:
During our term of office, we shall inform the House of all agreements, commitments, and understandings which in any way bind the nation to specific action in certain circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1924; Vol. 171, c. 2005.]
He went on to explain that the then Labour Government could not bind future Governments to do the same.
I am not trying to suggest that Her Majesty's Government want to weaken the 21-day practice, but we have had much discussion of Mr. Ponsonby's statement and I want to establish what it was. In fact I am advised that the only category of instrument in respect of which Mr. Ponsonby's declaration has ever been translated into practice by any subsequent Government are treaties subject to ratification.
This is the policy which the Government have followed and intend to follow.

Mr. Henderson: As the Foreign Secretary informed 80 other Governments of the action that he had taken about the Optional Clause as far back as April and did not inform the House until August, following a newspaper article, and then did it by means of a White Paper at a time when the House was not in Session, is not it quite outrageous that the Government should treat the House in that way?

Mr. Lloyd: I regret that the House was not informed earlier. The procedure followed was precisely similar to that when a reservation was made in 1955. Looking back on it, I think it was regrettable that there should have been this delay until August.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES FORCES, UNITED KINGDOM (ATOMIC WEAPONS)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the United States Administration regarding a revision of the conditions under which United States forces may use atomic weapons from British bases.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that The Times reported the American Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, as saying on 19th November:
There could be no question…of a veto on the use of nuclear weapons being exercised by other countries…No Government could legally cast a veto against a decision of another Government taken for its own defence.
Does not he agree that this statement amounts to a unilateral rejection of the Anglo-American agreement on the use of American nuclear weapons?

Mr. Lloyd: The position is, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated, that we regard the United States Government as being bound by the undertaking that there should be a joint decision, and that is the view of the United States Government.

Mr. J. Hynd: On a point of order. Might I draw your attention to the fact that Question No. 97, in my name, deals with this specific point? As the Foreign Secretary has made a partial answer to it, might I be permitted to put a supplementary question to him? Otherwise there will be no point in my Question being dealt with later?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply was intended to answer Question 97 as well as Question 28. However, I will allow the hon. Member to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Hynd: Has the Foreign Secretary noted the terms of Question 97, in which

I paraphrase the statement made by Mr. Dulles in his Press statement nearly a fortnight ago? As that statement was made officially by Mr. Dulles on the same day as the Minister of Defence in this House gave an opposite assurance, as we have had repetitions from the Prime Minister ever since of the statement made by the Minister of Defence, which is in direct contradiction of what Mr. Dulles said, and as no agreement can be operative unless both parties agree with its terms, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us precisely what the Prime Minister meant in repeating an assurance which amounts to a denunciation of the statement by Mr. Dulles?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not with me the actual words used by Mr. Dulles. I should expect them to refer to the United States bombers based in the United States. I do not think the hon. Gentleman heard what I said. I said that the position is as the Prime Minister has stated. That is the view of Her Majesty's Government, and that is also the view of the United States Government.

Mr. Bevan: How precise is that? If a hydrogen bomb is dropped on a nation from a base where consent has been given for it to be used, will the hydrogen bomb be marked with the brand of the nation of issue? This is a very serious matter, and we should like to have it clarified. Suppose, for example, a hydrogen bomb is loosed off on Russian territory from a base other than a British one. As there are British bases with hydrogen bombs, how would the Russians know from what source the bomb had come? Would not it be desirable that the agreement should be extended to cover the use of a hydrogen bomb in any circumstances whatever—that there should be collective agreement before its use? Would not that be the only guarantee of any value at all?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a completely different question from the Question on the Order Paper. It is a much wider one, and one which I should have thought it better not to deal with in question and answer. The Question addressed to me was:
…what representations he has received from the United States Administration regarding a revision of the conditions under which United States forces may use atomic weapons from British bases.


That Question I have answered, and there is no misunderstanding about that matter between the United States Government and the Government of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bevan: Might I follow that up? There is very great anxiety in the country at the present time about the circumstances in which this patrol duty is carried out and the circumstances under which hydrogen bombs may be used. It is left in a very vague condition at the present time. Ought not the Government to produce for the House a White Paper on the matter stating the actual facts, because no one now knows whether hydrogen bombs are being carried in planes above us, whether they can be let off at any moment, and how they can be detonated? Nothing of that sort is known. Letters which are coming in in very great numbers at the present time show the anxiety of the British people on this subject.

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider the question of having a further statement or a White Paper. However, I think it is wrong for one to seek to deal with these very difficult matters, which are a source of genuine anxiety, in an answer to a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the qualifications of Mr. Pote Sarasin for appointment as Secretary-General of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Nai Pote Sarasin was the unanimous choice of all the member Governments of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation because of his wide knowledge and experience of international affairs and his special knowledge of the Treaty area.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Mr. Sarasin recently accepted nomination as Prime Minister of Thailand from a military junta following a military coup d'état? In view of that, does Mr. Sarasin still retain the confidence of Her Majesty's Government? Does not this make nonsense of the Government's pretence that S.E.A.T.O. is intended to protect democracy and civil liberties?

Mr. Lloyd: Mr. Sarasin, as I expect the hon. Member knows, was deputy Foreign Minister of his country and then Foreign Minister, and he was also ambassador in Washington. He has had a very considerable period of experience in international affairs. He is at present fulfilling the duties of Prime Minister, with a view, I understand, to handing over to some other Government. We think he is very well qualified for the duties of the post in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will use the influence of Her Majesty's Government in all the international organisations of which it is a member to counteract the growing emphasis on the nuclear arms race as a reply to the Soviet artificial satellites, and instead initiate renewed efforts to limit and reduce armaments.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government have joined in making balanced proposals for partial disarmament designed to halt the arms race, including a proposal which would prevent the production of fissile material for weapons purposes. We have asked for and received the overwhelming support of the members of the United Nations for these proposals, and we still consider they offer a sound basis for further negotiation.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the deep longing among the ordinary people for an ending of the nuclear arms race, which can only have the same result as all previous arms races? Could not one great nation give a lead to the world by stepping out of this race and devoting its scientific knowledge to human welfare instead?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand the feeling of the hon. Gentleman and I know that other people share it. My own view is that the better approach, which is more likely to be effective, is that which I have indicated by our partial disarmament plan.

Captain Pilkington: Does not this Question, like many other Questions from the Opposition side of the House, presume that the Soviet Government want an end of the cold war and of the present state of tension, whereas all indications are to the contrary?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS, LA LINEA

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the anxiety and resentment caused to the many British subjects living in the Spanish town of La Linea, in view of the strained relations between Spain and Gibraltar, by the radio broadcast at the official request of our Vice-Consul at La Linea calling upon British subjects residing in that city to go to the consulate on a matter of great importance; and if he will make a statement giving the reasons for this action.

Mr. Ian Harvey: The purpose of the meeting of local British residents at the Vice-Consulate was to discuss subscription to a relief fund in aid of the victims of the recent Valencia floods. Her Majesty's Vice-Consul sought the cooperation of the Spanish radio and the local Spanish newspaper in order to ensure that all local British residents were informed. I am not aware of any anxiety or resentment caused to this community.

Mr. Dodds: What cheek! Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that over a period of two or three days La Linea radio, at the request of the Vice-Consul, asked these British citizens to go to the Vice-Consulate and that, in view of the strained relations, this caused panic and distress? If he doubts it, will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries in Gibraltar where there is a lot of disgust that Her Majesty's Government are absolutely spineless when dealing with Spain and at their failure to protect British subjects?

Mr. Harvey: If it is a question of cheek, the hon. Member is guilty of it by suggesting that British subjects would get into a panic on a subject like this. There is no evidence with regard to any strained relations. The present observations of the hon. Gentleman are much more likely to cause ill-feeling than anything which has to date occurred.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST

Israel-Jordan Frontier

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the official visit of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the

Middle East, he will make a statement on the present situation on the Israel-Jordan frontier.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Secretary-General of the United Nations is now visiting the area and I do not think it would be helpful to make any detailed statement at the moment. I am sure both sides of the House will wish Mr. Hammarskjöld well in his task of conciliation.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the reliance that is placed on the presence of United Nations Forces as a means of reducing tension, may I ask whether, in view of the increased tension on the Syria-Israel border and the Jordan-Israel border, it would be advisable, in view of the weakness of the present forces, to seek to strengthen them in the hope of removing the tension?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that the Secretary-General will have that matter in mind. In the case of the Israel-Jordan dispute the important thing is to try to strengthen the U.N.T.S.O., which is the supervisory organisation. I am certain that would contribute to a reduction of tension.

Nuclear Weapons

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States with regard to the supply of nuclear weapons to the Middle East.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have not discussed such a possibility.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, according to a report in The Times Mr. Malik, Foreign Minister of the Lebanon, told the Lebanese Parliament on 27th November when he returned from the United Nations that the United States were prepared to supply the Lebanon with all the defensive arms she needed, including rockets? Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether that means that America is to supply nuclear warheads along with the rockets to this Middle Eastern country? If so, is it already being done without any consultation with the United Kingdom at all? Are the Americans just ignoring us completely in this important development in the Middle East?

Mr. Lloyd: I was not aware of the statement to which the hon. Lady has referred and I will certainly look into the matter to see what further information I can get. If the hon. Lady will put down a further Question I will give her what information I have.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MEETING)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what political proposals for the safeguarding of peace in Europe he intends to place before the forthcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organisation meeting in Paris.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am not prepared to make a statement in public as to what proposals may be put forward by Her Majesty's Government at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference.

Mr. Warbey: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the withdrawal of Soviet troops and Soviet military bases from Central and Eastern Europe would make a significant contribution towards peace in Europe? Does he think that this can he achieved by forcing the Soviet Union to give ground? Will he agree that, in the present circumstances, it can be achieved only by reciprocal action and a new political initiative on the part of the British and other Western Governments?

Mr. Lloyd: All that goes very far wide of the Question on the Paper, which deals with the British proposals, and which I have answered.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose at the forthcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference that the British, French, United States and West German Governments should reconsider their refusal of 29th July to treat the existence of the Organisation as a subject for negotiation with the Soviet Union, and should instead signify their willingness to discuss with the Soviet Union how progressively to replace the respective military obligations of the Organisation and the Warsaw Alliance by common obligations and arrangements on an all-European scale within the United Nations to keep the peace, control arms, unify Germany

democratically and withdraw all foreign forces from the territories of Germany and her neighbours.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Does not the Foreign Secretary sincerely believe that we have reached a pitch where neither side of the House wishes to make cheap party capital out of this matter, which is an issue of human survival? Would he not, therefore, at this juncture be prepared to review this anachronism called "N.A.T.O." and take the initiative which many of the American people would welcome, as was demonstrated by the Reith Lectures and Mr. Kennan's broadcast the other night? This is a chance for England, if the Foreign Secretary has the courage to take it. Why not take it?

Mr. Lloyd: For Britain to take the initiative of seeking to dismantle and wind up N.A.T.O. would be a catastrophe for this country and for Western Europe.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker. This is a cheap way of twisting a Question—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member appeals to me on a point of order, but—

Mr. Davies: It is cheap.

Mr. Speaker: —he must see that his own language conforms to that high standard of Parliamentary behaviour.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Ridsdale.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Foreign Secretary aware how many of us on Government benches are disturbed about the constant slighting by hon. Members opposite of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought the hon. Member was rising to a point of order. Certainly the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) rose.

Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. I think the House knows me well enough to believe that I do not wish to restrict freedom of speech in any way, but a good many Questions have been


put on the Order Paper which I suggest to you are open to the suspicion that they are not put down with a view to representing the interests of constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Because of that, Sir, I was wondering whether you would be prepared to consider reviewing the examination of Questions, particularly where foreign affairs is concerned, by the Table, when they are put in—

Mr. Hamilton: Have another tribunal.

Major Legge-Bourke: in order to ensure that Questions put down are not such as would give very great encouragement to the country's principal enemy?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order of any sort at all.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I raise the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) a few moments ago? Provided proper language is used, would not my hon. Friend be perfectly entitled to raise with you as a point of order a misrepresentation, either deliberate or inadvertent, which the Foreign Secretary put upon his Question in the form of the Answer he gave? If that was a misrepresentation, would not my hon. Friend be entitled to correct it?

Mr. Speaker: Not as a point of order. If the hon. Member thinks he has been misrepresented he should take advantage of some opportunity for saying so, but it is not for me to rule on it as a point of order.

Mr. Davies: I said it in clear language, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEADS OF GOVERNMENT (MEETINGS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the preliminary preparation that is required before a meeting of the heads of Government is arranged; when it is likely to begin; and how long he estimates this preliminary preparation will take.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I take it that the hon. Member is referring to a meeting between the heads of the French, Soviet, United Kingdom and United States Governments comparable with that of July, 1955. Before such a meeting takes place,

it is important, in our view, that there should be a reasonable prospect of success. If it is a failure, it will increase tension. The time taken to reach the conclusion that a meeting has a reasonable prospect of success must depend upon the circumstances, none of which are under our sole control.

Mr. Hughes: Would the Foreign Secretary go as far as Mr. Foster Dulles, who said last night that the Russians were not to be trusted, anyhow? Can he tell us what use there is in having negotiations in any circumstances if we are not to trust the people on the other side?

Mr. Lloyd: What the hon. Gentleman has put in his supplementary question supports the thesis which I have repeatedly put to the House, that we want proof by deeds of a desire for peaceful co-existence.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIILITARY OPERATIONS, EGYPT (CLAIMS)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made in settlement of claims arising out of the Franco-British armed action in Egypt; and what decisions have been taken at the conference in Rome.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Anglo-Egyptian financial talks in Rome.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Anglo-Egyptian financial talks in Rome are still proceeding. The aim of the United Kingdom Delegation is, as the House is aware, the desequestration of British property and compensation where this is due. Agreement has not yet been reached but some progress has been made.

Mr. Bence: In view of the persistent reports that Her Majesty's Government are contemplating compensation for Egyptian nationals for damage and injury to their interests in Egypt, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will immediately make adequate compensation to British nationals who also suffered from the Franco-British operation?

Mr. Lloyd: The first matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred has not been discussed. On the second matter,


we are trying to do what we can on an interim basis under the terms of the scheme already announced to the House.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Commander PURSEY: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how much of the £724,000 provided for the 12 Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve divisions, in this year's Navy Estimates, has been allocated to the Hull Division: what reduction is forecast for next year and what are the present number of active service or pensioner officers and ratings on the instructional staff, stating substantive ranks and ratings.

Commander PURSEY: To ask the parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the strength of true volunteer Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve ratings for the Hull Division for 1957–58; what are the branches and numbers of ratings which are at present under strength; and what steps his department intend to take to organise a recruiting campaign to interest the Hull Corporation and other official bodies and obtain the necessary volunteers who have not so far volunteered.

Commander PURSEY: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps the Admiralty intend to take to inquire into the cause of the recent false Press leak that the Hull Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve base was to be closed down, and to allay the anxiety of the Hull Corporation and other official bodies connected with shipping and commerce there.

Major WALL: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the yearly cost of maintaining H.M.S. "Galatea", the Humber Division, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, answer Questions Nos. 46, 47, 48 and 51 together.
There has been a review of the Naval Volunteer Reserves to fit them for our new mobilisation plans. My noble Friend has decided to form a single unified reserve, which will be called the Royal Naval Reserve. This combination of the

existing Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve with their separate traditions and experience will give added strength to the Navy's volunteer reservists and make them all one company, with one aim. It will also enable the fullest use to be made of the training facilities and of the sea experience available in both these Reserves.
Reservists will hereafter be trained more thoroughly, but in rather more limited fields to enable them to take up alloted tasks immediately on mobilisation. This involves the reduction of facilities in all divisions, the most serious of which is at Hull, where the Sea Training Centre will be reduced to a centre for training communications ratings. The Admiralty have reached this particular decision with very real regret and wish to record their recognition of the services rendered by the personnel of the Humber Division.
All officers and men of the divisions, including Humber, will be invited to join the new Reserve. The training of ratings will, in general, involve attendance at the Sea Training Centres on week nights as well as periods of continuous training at sea; ratings who cannot carry out the new training obligations can still transfer to the new Reserve, but will not normally be required for training.
This unified reserve will continue to offer wide opportunities for sea training, with the knowledge that such training will constitute a real support for the Royal Navy in serious emergency.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what is to be the cost of this new unified Royal Naval Reserve and whether this step indicates any substantial reduction in our defence expenditure?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir, a considerable economy will be involved in this. Once this is all through, there will be a saving of about one-third of the total cost of the Reserves.

Mr. Shinwell: What is that?

Mr. Soames: It will be reduced from about £1,800,000 to about £1,200,000, but the object is not primarily one of economy. It is an endeavour to streamline the Reserves and, for the first time, to tailor them to our mobilisation requirements and to endeavour to give men


specific training so that when a man is trained he will have a specific and allotted task to do in the event of emergency.

Major Wall: While accepting the advantages of amalgamating the Reserves, may I ask my hon. Friend whether the R.M.F.V.R. will be affected? As regards the closing of the Sea Training Centre at Hull, can my hon. Friend say where officers and men of the R.N.V.R. from Hull will do their sea training if they go on to the Reserve?

Mr. Soames: This does not affect the Marine Forces Volunteer Reserve.
In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's second question, I cannot say exactly where they will do their sea training yet, but those officers who come forward and offer their services, and are prepared to give the time necessary to fulfil the training which we would wish to give them, will be offered sea time in some other division.

Mr. Steele: We shall, of course, want a little time to examine this statement. In the meantime, could the Parliamentary Secretary give the House an assurance that the Admiralty will be able to call on these men should mobilisation or an emergency take place? Will it have the knowledge necessary to get them quickly?
Secondly, would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that we are getting these statements in a rather piecemeal fashion? We had a statement on Thursday about Hong Kong and a statement yesterday from the Colonial Secretary about Malta. Is it not time that the Parliamentary Secretary gave us a comprehensive statement as to what the position is to be?

Mr. Soames: This unification of the Reserve will certainly be a help in the object that the hon. Member has in mind.
As to the timing of these various announcements, the hon. Member will appreciate that the defence forces are being reorganised and that the reorganisation is planned to be spread over some five years. I think that the House would far sooner have the advantage of information and statements on decisions that are taken as time goes on rather than wait for one comprehensive statement, which would be a very considerable statement, at the end of each year.

Mr. G. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the thanks of the Humber generally that its link with the Royal Navy is not being broken? Can he assure us, however, that he will be getting enough volunteers from the Humber and its district under the new organisation when those volunteers are to be only ratings and not officers?

Mr. Soames: The Navy sends its good wishes to the Humber and is glad that the association is to continue. We are certain there will be the number of men forthcoming to do the training we require.

Commander Maitland: By abolishing the Humber Division, is not the Admiralty losing in the Midlands a very large catchment area of men who, perhaps, would wish to volunteer for the Navy in wartime? Where are they going? How will they go to their new bases and where will those bases be?

Mr. Soames: Part of the difficulty is that, geographically, Hull is so situated that it has only a comparatively small area on which to draw for the number of men capable of giving the time required for this training. Coupled with that is the fact that the fishing fleet and the Merchant Navy have a considerable call on those men who wish to be associated with the sea and it has been difficult in Hull to get the numbers of men required to devote the necessary time to the kind of training required for this work. Those who choose to remain within the new Royal Naval Reserve will be given opportunities for sea training.

Mr. Paget: Can the Minister tell us a little more about how we are to train as one unit ex-members of the R.N. Reserve, who are merchant seamen living generally at sea, and of the R.N.V. Reserve, who are landsmen living on land? Offhand, it seems a little difficult to understand how we are to bring these two together in single training.

Mr. Soames: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but it is considered that the R.N.V.R. will gain very considerable benefit from the sea experience available within the R.N.R.

Mr. Shinwell: Provided that training facilities are available—and that is very important—will the hon. Gentleman consider, in conjunction with his right


hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, and other Ministers, whether, instead of calling up men for National Service with the Navy—which does not call up a great many, in any case—it is possible to provide them with the alternative of joining this new and potentially efficient Royal Naval Reserve?

Mr. Soames: I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that goes somewhat wide of the Questions on the Order Paper, but I am sure tint my right hon. Friend has taken note of the suggestion.

Mr. G. Brown: Referring to the second part of the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), mail ask whether the hon. Gentleman does not agree that it would be easier to assimilate and understand these piecemeal announcements if we had a comprehensive statement on naval policy, since the White Paper says that the future rôle of the Navy is uncertain? Until the Government tell us in which direction the uncertainty has been reviewed, these piecemeal announcements look more and more like minor pieces of economy.

Mr. Soarnes: The right hon. Gentleman knows, I think, that the White Paper did not say that the future rôle of the Navy was uncertain. It said that the future of the Navy in global war was uncertain, but almost everything is uncertain in global war, because no one knows quite what global war would be like.

ROCKET RANGE, THE HEBRIDES

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. MALCOLM MACMILLAN: To ask the Minister of Defence if he will now make a full statement about the proposed changes in the Western Isles guided-missiles scheme.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, answer Question No. 101.
In the light of the changes in defence policy announced in the White Paper last April, and as part of the general drive for economy in public expenditure, the Gov-

ernment have re-examined the plan to provide facilities in the Hebrides for Service trials and training with guided weapons.
This review has confirmed the need for a range in the Hebrides for surface-to-surface rockets. On the other hand, it has shown that it would now he feasible to carry out most of the necessary Service firings with air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles at the Ministry of Supply rocket establishment at Aberporth, and the balance at the Army gunnery range at Ty Croes, in Anglesey. The Government have, therefore, decided to adopt this course and to provide in the Hebrides facilities for firing surface-to-surface rockets only.
This revised plan will require rather less land in the Hebrides than was originally proposed, and will enable the construction programme there to be greatly curtailed. This should appreciably reduce the disturbance caused to the islanders; and arrangements are being made to explain the position to them as soon as possible.
Some additional instrumentation and certain other facilities will have to be provided on the Welsh ranges. After allowing for this, the overall effect will be to bring down the capital cost of the whole scheme from about £20 million to about £5 million. There will also be substantial savings in running costs and in demands upon manpower.

Mr. MacMillan: In thanking the Minister for the care with which he has prepared the statement that he has just made, may I ask whether I may convey on his behalf the thanks that the Government forgot to extend to the people in the Western Isles for the patience with which they have borne the terrible confusion that this exercise in waste and muddle has caused in the area? Can I now assure my constituents that there will be no further radical revisions; that this is the final decision of the Government on this scheme, which has had such a record of muddle and confusion all through? Will the right hon. Gentleman now do as I asked him a fortnight ago, that is, approach his colleagues in the Government and ask them to be a little more generous in developing schemes of real constructive value to a community


which they seem to have discovered only when they required its land for defence purposes?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the hon. Member knows that I have for a long time had very much at heart the need to try to bring industry and constructive activity to the Highlands and to remote parts such as the Western Isles; but that, of course, is rather outside the scope of this particular Question.
I do not accept that there has been a great deal of waste here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well. £15 million has been saved as a result of the change—[HON. MEMBERS: "Saved?"] £15 million. Up to date, about £½ million has been spent on works, almost all of which will be needed for the surface-to-surface rocket range, with which we are proceeding.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, provided defence considerations are not prejudiced, this saving of £15 million is very welcome indeed?

Hon. Members: Saving?

Mr. G. Brown: May I press the Minister to tell us what the saving is? Presumably, if he had fixed at £100 million the figure for the range not now required for defence purposes, he might have claimed a saving of £85 million. Does he think that that is a genuine saving? Is it not nonsense to put that forward as a saving? Is not the real reason that the Minister and his predecessor decided that defence considerations were so overriding such a short time ago that they could not even give time for a proper inquiry, and that what has changed that enables them, equally vehemently, to say. "We did not need it all; in fact, we need only £5 million worth"?

Mr. Sandys: A reduction in expenditure which would otherwise have been incurred I regard as being a saving—[Interruption.] We need not argue about that. Quite a number of factors have made this change possible but, in the scope of a supplementary answer, I will mention only two.
First, there is the curtailment of the R.A.F. weapon training programme resulting from the planned reduction in the fighter force announced in the White

Paper. Secondly, there is the dropping of certain Ministry of Supply development projects, including development projects connected with the more advanced types of fighter which would have followed the P.1—also announced in the White Paper—which have thrown up spare capacity at Aberporth.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that very shortly he and his Service colleagues will be presenting Estimates to the House. Can he give us an assurance that he will have a very careful review made of those Estimates, so that the House will not be asked, in a month or two, to vote considerable sums which later it will be told will not be needed in their entirety?

Mr. Bevan: More savings.

Mr. Sandys: As the right hon. Gentleman says, I hope that there may be savings.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which of the seven Ministers of Defence we have had in this Government and in the preceding Conservative Government is responsible for this misguided scheme? Can he give an assurance that it was not any of the Ministers in the last Labour Government?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also say whether the Ministry of Supply bears any responsibility for this scheme? If so, is that not a very substantial reason why we should consider whether the Ministry of Supply is any longer of value?

Mr. Sandys: That is rather an involved question, but I certainly would not, without notice, absolve the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) of any responsibility.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: May I try, once again, to bring the Minister to his feet on one issue which is of more than ordinary importance to the local people? I refer not only to the disturbance which has been caused in the minds of the people locally, but also to the hardship to some who have been forced from their homes and land; to others forced from their jobs; and to others forced to sell their livestock, without any hope of restoring their livelihood in the foreseeable future.
Is the right hon. Gentleman going to do anything to restore the damage which


has already been done there? It is no use saying that there is no waste. The right hon. Gentleman has wasted the livelihood of many of these people, and he has not even said one word in mitigation of the offence.

Mr. Sandys: I hope that one of the effects of this change of plan will be, as I said in my statement, to reduce the extent of the disturbance to the local life of the community, about which there was so much protest when the scheme was announced. Where crofters—and I think that this is the main issue here—have suffered loss as a result of the scheme, even though they may have suffered loss in connection with some area of land which will not now be required, they will be entitled to put in their claims for compensation to the Scottish Land Court which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is sitting on this matter at present.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that opinion in Scotland was told that the original scheme was absolutely essential for national security? Is he now saying that that is entirely inaccurate?

Mr. Sandys: I can only imagine that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said in reply to an earlier question, when I explained that as a result of the changes in defence policy, announced in the Defence White Paper last, April, the development programme of the Ministry of Supply—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to the answer; he asked me a question. The development programme of the Ministry of Supply was in certain respects reduced, with the result that spare capacity was thrown up at the rocket range at

Aberporth; and also, as a result of the reduction in the size of the fighter force, the number of firings which it was necessary to carry out for the purposes of training that force was obviously also reduced.
Those factors, and a number of other factors which I cannot go into at this moment, have made it possible to accommodate the Service firings for surface-to-air and air-to-air weapons at Aberporth, supplemented to some extent by the Army gunnery range in Anglesey, and, therefore, have made it unnecessary for us to proceed with all the work in the Hebrides.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the truth of this matter that this is a strategic victory over the Minister of Supply and the Secretary of State for Air? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, if the original £20 million was a waste, that the £5 million will not be a waste, too, and that it would not he better to transfer the £5 million to the Secretary of State for Scotland for developing the Highland areas?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the announcement I have made shows what sweet relations exist between myself, the Service Ministers and the Minister of Supply.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Motions relating to the Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure and the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE ACT, 1770

3.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler) rose—

Mr. Herbert Morrison: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The Motion which the Secretary of State is about to move is in quite limited terms and is probably so limited and so legal in character that it might leave a large number of hon. Members in some difficulty about discussing it at all. Is it not difficult to keep this Motion from the very wide implications of the Report of the Committee of Privileges? The point I want to put to you, Sir, is whether it would not be convenient if observations of hon. Members could be somewhat wider in scope and cover certain aspects of the Report beyond the strict terms of the Motion.

Mr. Speaker: The Motion itself, I would point out, is definite enough. It is a Motion for an Address to Her Majesty for the services and assistance of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to decide a question of law then for that advice to be communicated to the House, and for the House to consider in the light of that opinion. That is the way the matter stands on the Order Paper, and by that I am bound. Anything that is relevant to that will be in order.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: With respect, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure about this, but is the use of the word "decide" in this connection correct? It surely is a flatter of some importance whether any advice given by the Privy Council would or would not be decisive. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you this? I am hoping not to make a lone speech today, you will be glad to know, but is there, in fact, any consideration relevant to this Report which would not he relevant to the question whether or not the House ought to take the very unusual course of referring to the Privy Council a matter arising out of the Report? The first question is: is the word "decide" accurate in this connection?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know which word the hon. Member refers to.

Mr. Pickthorn: It is the word "decide".

Mr. Speaker: Did I say "decide"? I thought I said "advise".

Mr. Pickthorn: You said "decide" Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It should have been "advise".

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). While I appreciate that it is impossible to ask you to give Rulings on hypothetical arguments that have not yet been used, Sir, nevertheless the Motion asks us to do something which was one of three recommendations which the Committee of Privileges included in its Report. Some of us may well be inclined to argue that while we would have been prepared to vote for a Motion of this kind, on its own merits or not, it is impossible to approach it without having in mind the other recommendations which the Committee made.
The point that I am putting is whether it would be regarded as out of order to say, for instance, that one was not prepared to vote for this Motion in the circumstances in which the Motion comet before the House, namely, having a hearing upon a particular inquiry and other recommendations that were made.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member has pointed out, it is not easy to give decisions in advance on these matters. But, taking the natural meaning of the words that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has used, I would say that it is perfectly in order.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I think you would agree that it would be impossible to oppose the Motion without referring to other aspects of the Report, because hon. Members' arguments would be based on the other section of the Report.

Mr. Speaker: That is why I said that anything relevant to the Motion before the House would be in order.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Motion before the House


does not mention any Report. The Motion has not yet been moved and it is in completely general terms. It does not refer to any particular case. In those circumstances, while no doubt the case could be taken as an instance, any one case would appear to be as relevant as any other.

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman who rose to move the Motion will explain to the House its necessity and how it arises. That, I imagine, would be the normal procedure.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I will now endeavour to explain the Motion, Mr. Speaker.
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing and consideration the question of law, whether the House would be acting contrary to the Parliamentary Privilege Act, 1770, if it treated the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament in respect of a speech or proceeding by him in Parliament as a breach of its Privileges, in order that the said Judicial Committee may, after hearing argument on both sides (if necessary), advise Her Majesty thereon; and further praying that Her Majesty, upon receiving the advice of the said Judicial Committee, will be pleased to communicate such advice to this House, in order that this House may take such action as seems to it proper in the circumstances.
The House will remember that on 8th April the case of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was remitted to the Committee of Privileges. If hon. Members will turn to the Report, they will see at the bottom of page xix and the top of page xx that the Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 3, on the Motion:
That the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should he sought on the question
referred to on the Order Paper. If hon. Members look back to the earlier part of the Report, they will find in the conclusions of the comparatively brief Report made by the Committee which ends in page viii, that conclusion 20 (c) of the Select Committee reads:
The opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be sought on the question
again referred to on the Order Paper.
That is one of the conclusions at the end of the Report of the Select Committee. I will not go into too much

detail, because I, too, do not wish to be long. I propose to confine my remarks solely to the issue of putting to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a matter of law upon which there is dubiety or, in simple English, doubt.
I ought to give the background so that hon. Members will understand what they will be voting on. First, the Government consider, in looking at this matter, and I consider, in my almost separate capacity as Leader of the House, that there certainly should be an opportunity for a wider debate than is possible upon the Motion when we have received this Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is borne out by the opinion of the Committee of Privileges when it used these words:
We recommend that when the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been received the matter should again he referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I will go further and say that if the House should wish to discuss this matter fully before sending it back to the Committee of Privileges, according to the wishes of the Committee expressed in the Report, the House has a right to do so and has a right not to accept the advice of the Committee of Privileges in sending it back to that Committee. The House is absolutely free today either to accept or reject this Motion to send a point of law to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is also at liberty, and we will give it the opportunity, to discuss this matter when we have the Report of the Judicial Committee. In my humble opinion, subject to what you say from the Chair. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a comparatively restricted point today, although it is a point of very great importance.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if we accept the Motion and receive the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that advice will be binding on us? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is not binding on us, why cannot the advice be obtained simply by asking judges to give evidence before the Committee, just as any other expert question is settled?

Mr. Butler: That is a matter of opinion, but I have been advised—and it is the view of the majority of the Committee of Privileges on an intricate matter,


which is one of the most difficult that has arisen in the last three hundred years of parliamentary procedure—that it is the right course to ask for the opinion of the Committee of the Privy Council. I am moving this Motion, according to what I believe is the correct procedure, in order to give the House the opportunity of saying whether or not it wants that course to be followed.
The answer to the specific question of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is to refer to the terms of the Motion, which, by implication, answer his question. If he will look at the Motion he will see that it says, at the end:
and further praying that Her Majesty, upon receiving the advice of the said Judicial Committee, will be pleased to communicate such advice to this House, in order that this House may take such action as seems to it proper in the circumstances".
I would like to endorse that by saying, that when we receive the advice of the Judicial Committee it will be up to us to take what action we consider necessary.

Mr. S. Silverman: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for interrupting him, but may I put to him a hypothetical question? Supposing that the House passes the Motion and it goes to the Judicial Committee, and that Committee decides that to take the action described in the Motion would be in conflict with the Act of 1770, would not the House be precluded from doing anything whatever, on the old-established principle that we cannot at this time extend our privileges? Would not we, to that extent, be bound by the decision?

Mr. Butler: I think that we should wait and see what the result of the appeal to the Judicial Committee will be on this matter. I take the view that the House is always master of its own privileges. I have always taken that view, and I take it now as Leader of the House. It is important that when the House decides upon its privileges, and the way it should exercise them, it should be certain about the state of Statute Law which affects our privileges. It was during the discussion of this case that the Act of 1770 was brought to our attention, rather to the surprise of some of us.
As there is doubt about the terms of the Act, as I shall explain shortly, it is

surely valuable to the House, in making up its own mind about the exercise of its privileges, that it should be aware of the interpretation of the Statute as given by the highest legal body in the land, namely, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Therefore, I do not think that in sending this matter to the Privy Council the House can regard itself as being in any way wasting its time. It will obtain an up-to-date legal opinion as given by the Judicial Committee on what exactly the Act of 1770 means.
Before I describe the position regarding this Act and why we have to send this matter to the Privy Council, I want to make two observations. First, I would not like to prejudge the issue before it goes to the Judicial Committee. Therefore, I do not propose to come down on one side or the other. The matter is to go on a point of law to the Judicial Committee. Secondly, I presided over the Committee of Privileges for about nine months. We had a very difficult and arduous time in reaching these conclusions. I have been acting as the impartial Chairman of the Committee, which is according to the tradition of the Committee of Privileges.
I should like to reserve my position regarding anything that may happen in the future. I think that is legitimate because I have to exercise, not only in my position as Leader of the House, but also in so far as I am Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, a certain degree of independence in seeing that the questions are fairly put. I hope that hon. Members who were members of this Committee will feel that the questions were fairly put, and that the House will feel that it has before it the evidence, the details and the whole of our proceedings, so as to see how we reached these conclusions.
The only other general observation I have to make is that hon. Members must feel themselves at liberty to vote on this matter as Members of the House of Commons. This is a House of Commons matter and it should be treated as a House of Commons matter. It is natural that I should desire to propose that the advice of the Committee of Privileges should be taken, and I should like, with all the authority at my command, to press this Motion upon the House and to ask hon. Members to support it.
I now want briefly to explain the background—and I shall keep my history to


the minimum. If people want an essay in history I would ask them to read the report of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), which is very learned and which has many great merits in it. I should advise them also to obtain all the other information they can upon the background of this matter before we come to our next debate, when we have received the Report of the Judicial Committee.
Until the beginning of the eighteenth century Members of Parliament and their servants enjoyed immunity from being sued in civil action while Parliament was sitting, and for 40 days before and after the Session. That was the position. After the Revolution, when the intervals between the Sessions of Parliament became short, this privilege became a cause of hardship to suitors—not to Members, but to suitors. I may say that I am not referring to the question of love, but to civil actions.
Therefore, in 1701, 1703 and 1738 Acts were passed which restricted the privilege of hon. Members. These were followed, as we discovered in our researches, by the Act of 1770, which recites that
the several Laws heretofore made for restraining the Privilege of Parliament, with respect to Actions or Suits…are insufficient to obviate he Inconveniences arising from a Delay of Suits by reason of Privilege of Parliament; whereby the Parties often lose the Benefit of several Terms.
Section 1 of the Act states that
any Person or Persons shall and may, at any Time, commence and prosecute any Action or Suit in any Court of Record, or Court of Equity, or of Admiralty, and in all Causes Matrimonial and Testamentary, in any Court having Cognisance of Causes Matrimonial and Testamentary, against any Peer or Lord of Parliament of Great Britain, or against any of the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, and the Commissioners for Shires and Burghs of the House of Commons of Great Britain for the Time being, or against their or any of their mental or any other Servants, or any other Person entitled to the Privilege of Parliament of Great Britain; and no such Action, Suit, or any other Process or Proceeding thereupon, shall at any Time be impeached, stayed, or delayed, by or under Colour or Pretence of any Privilege of Parliament.
To make clear why there was doubt in the minds of the Committee of Privileges, I will now shortly sum up the two rival points of view.
There are differing opinions as to the proper interpretation to be placed upon this Section and upon the Act in general.

On the one hand, it is said that the effect of the Act is to permit the institution of prosecutions and actions against Members of Parliament irrespective of the subject matter of such actions, and that it would be contrary to the Act, which provides that no such action shall be impeached by or under colour of any Privilege of Parliament, for the House to treat the institution of such an action as a breach of Privilege. That is one view—and a very serious view.

Mr. James Callaghan: I am sorry to interrupt the Lord Privy Seal, but some of us are anxious about this matter and want to be clear about it before we vote. I want to take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Let us suppose that the Judicial Committee upholds this view. Is it then the view of the Lord Privy Seal that the House would be entitled to put the matter right if it thought fit by making letters from Members and Ministers privileged in future?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: By Act of Parliament.

Mr. Butler: We want, first, to get the answer of the Privy Council upon this point of law, namely, whether a suit can be impeached. That is the point about the Act of 1770. We also have to consider, at the same time, the rest of the conclusions of the Committee of Privileges on the subject raised by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, which is a separate issue and which is affected by the attitude taken by the Judicial Committee on the subject whether it is possible for a suitor to sue a Member of Parliament without a question of a breach of Privilege arising.
We must look at the whole picture when we have our main debate on the report of the Privy Council itself.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Some hon. Members will be voting in the dark unless they know in advance whether, by Act of Parliament, the present Privilege which we all thought we enjoyed is continued if the Judicial Committee says that we have not that Privilege under the Act of 1770.

Mr. Butler: All I am claiming is that the House of Commons must know what


the position on the Statute law is in regard to suits against Members of Parliament. Until we know that we cannot decide what action we should take. There may be a variety of actions we might take, as a House, and if the House felt inclined to remit this to the Committee of Privileges again we should give advice on the best action to take. But I maintain—and I think that this is a view that any Leader of the House would take—that until we have the interpretation of Statute law it is impossible for the House to define its privileges. As there is dubiety about this aspect of Statute law, I think that we should get a clear interpretation of what it means.
It is, for example, quite possible even for an amateur who is not a lawyer to understand the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Declaration of Rights of 1688. We understand what they mean, but there is dubiety about this Act of 1770, and that is why we want to clear it up before making up our minds.
I now want to put the other side of the picture in regard to the 1770 Act. It is contended, on the other hand, that the Act was not intended—and on a proper interpretation is not effective—to prevent the House treating as a breach of Privilege the institution or prosecution of an action against a Member of Parliament in respect of a speech or proceeding by him in Parliament. Those who share that point of view say that it is unnecessary and, indeed, wrong, to construe the 1770 Act in a manner which would involve a drastic restriction of the privilege of freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in Parliament, as declared in the Bill of Rights, to which I made reference just now, and of the jealously guarded right of the House to exercise exclusive control over its own proceedings. That is the alternative view.
As there is this doubt about the law I think it is right for the matter to be sent to the highest judicial body we can find for the purpose of getting an interpretation of the Statute law involved.

Mr. Paget: I want to follow what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He says that we are masters of our Privilege. In that case we are the highest judicial authority upon this issue. We always have been on questions of Privilege. That is why it seems so odd to refer the

matter from a superior court to an inferior one.

Mr. Butler: It is not quite so easy as that. When we examine the relationship of Parliament, with its Privilege, to the courts, it is vital—as anyone who has had the honour of going into this matter in great detail must realise—to understand how the courts would themselves construe an Act.
That there is doubt about it is shown by the two points of view. It is important, before Parliament decides what action or attitude it will take, that Members should be absolutely clear and that we should know how the matter will be construed in the courts. That we can obtain only by referring the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Lord Privy Seal says that there is doubt about the matter. Will he be good enough to confirm that for the last 120 years or so there has been no doubt whatever and that it has been recognised almost universally that anything said in Parliament is not cognisable by any court in the land?

Mr. Butler: That, again, is an oversimplification. If we go into the history of the Privilege of Parliament, ever since the period of the Revolution, we find that there have been occasions when there have been clashes between Parliament and the courts. It is important, in the interests of the body politic, so far as we can and while preserving our undoubted rights, to try to see that we are certain what a Statute means. We are not certain what this Statute means, as is shown the fact that when the matter was referred to a body appointed to examine it, the Committee of Privileges, we decided by such a majority, not on party, but on House of Commons lines, that we thought there was doubt which it was worth clearing up. That is the case I am putting to the House.

Mr. Paget: I thank the right hon. Gentlemen for giving way. He has given way on several occasions and I am most grateful to him, but on this sort of issue it is better to get clarification. Is he suggesting that, if we got this opinion on an abstract question from the Judicial Committee, that would be binding on the courts when a specific issue was


raised by an individual citizen? I can assure him that that would not be the case.

Mr. Butler: As the hon. and learned Member is so sure of his opinion, I will not try to disabuse him.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a distinction should be drawn in the advice given to the House between a matter which arose out of the ambit of the exercise by a Member of Parliament of his Parliamentary duty and a matter which arose as between citizens of this country outside the ambit of Parliamentary duty?

Mr. Butler: That was one of the doubts about the interpretation of the Act of 1770. Putting it in a simpler form, the distinction arose between those who thought that the Act of 1770 was passed to enable Members of Parliament to be treated as ordinary citizens outside their Parliamentary duty—which we all agree is common sense—and those who did not. Here, in answer to certain statements in the Press, I say that it is not the desire of hon. Members to be treated exceptionally outside their Parliamentary duties.
There is a much more serious question which the House will have to decide on the next occasion, that is, when we get this point of law cleared up. It is whether we should be protected when honourably pursuing our own activities as Members of Parliament, dependent on proceedings in Parliament. That does not arise on this issue of a reference of the point of law to the Judicial Committee.
I want to refer to another ambiguity which arose in the course of discussion. That was the question of Resolutions of the House as opposed to Statute Law. In 1810, a Select Committee was appointed to consider what course should be pursued with regard to the actions brought by Sir Francis Burdett against a predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker—I tremble to say it—and the Serjeant at Arms. This is a notorious case.
After considering the provisions of the Act of 1770 and the relevant Acts passed in 1701, 1703 and 1738, the Committee concluded, but without elaborating its reasons, that the Acts

merely apply to proceedings against members in respect of their debts and actions as individuals, and not in respect of their conduct as members of parliament; and therefore they do not in any way abridge the ancient law and privilege of parliament so far as they respect the freedom and conduct of members of parliament as such.
I may well be asked by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) why that does not settle it. It is because it appears that the House has never adopted that Report. If I am wrong, I am open to challenge, but that is the opinion given by all the authorities whom I consulted before the debate. While we may hope that that weighty Committee, in coming to its opinion, may have cleared up the position from the point of view of the House of Commons, it has not cleared up the dubiety in respect of Section 1 of the Act of 1770. I mention that to remind hon. Members that if things were a little clearer we should not have had to trouble the House this afternoon.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not true that the opinion to which that Committee came, even though never formally adopted by the House of Commons, has never been challenged from that day until questioned by the Attorney-General in the course of these proceedings?

Mr. Butler: I could not say for certain whether it had never been challenged, but I can say that a specific challenge was made in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.
That is as far as I can go if I am not to prejudge the situation, but I want to remind hon. Members, so that they may make up their minds whether they want to refer this to the Privy Council, that there have been only two matters referred to the Privy Council on more or less the same basis as this, and they were not questions of Privilege. They were matters regarding the composition of the House and the qualification or disqualification from membership of the House. I thought that I ought to make that clear, because it is my business to put the case and then to ask the decision of the House, while recommending that we get this point cleared up.
I remind the House that the first case was in 1931, when the House presented an Address praying that certain transactions


which had taken place between Samuel Montagu and Company, in which firm Sir Stuart Samuel, M.P., was a partner, and the Secretary of State for India in Council, as reported by a Select Committee, which had been appointed to consider whether Sir Samuel had vacated his seat in consequence of those transactions, disabled Sir Samuel from sitting and voting in the House. That was put to the Judicial Committee.
The second occasion was in 1950, when the House voted an Address praying that the question whether the provisions of the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, disqualified Mr. MacManaway from sitting and voting in the House might be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
As we are all being learned, perhaps may use Latin and say that those cases were not in pari materia, or on the same level as this case. In making up their minds on this case, hon. Members will be deciding on something very important for the future Privileges of the House.
I have attempted to put both sides of the case and to state what the Committee of Privileges decided, by a majority of six to three, should be done. Hon. Members have the whole of the proceedings before them and can see how that decision was reached. I maintain that it would be wiser not to make up our minds on the specific case, or to attempt to define the present position, until we are absolutely clear how lawyers today would read the Statute of 1770.

Mr. Frank Bowles: The Lord Privy Seal will remember that in the MacManaway case Mr. Geoffrey Bing appeared for Mr. MacManaway's point of view and the Attorney-General for the opposite point of view. In this case, no doubt the Attorney-General will appear—or might appear. Has the Lord Privy Seal thought of an equally eminent counsel to appear for the point of view of the other side?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I do not think that I am abusing a confidence when I say that I was approached by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who has taken a great interest in this matter. I sent him a message this morning to say that I was informed that it would be for the Treasury Solicitor to appoint counsel. I now understand that

the matter derives from the Attorney-General and that my right hon. and learned Friend—as I have ascertained this morning—will take care to see that a suitable person, agreeable to the Judicial Committee and to hon. Members who take an alternative view and of a status similar to the Attorney-General's, shall state the case on the other side.
The Attorney-General has, on the one hand, duties as a member of the Government, and, on the other, duties which are legal duties. He has given me his personal assurance that it is his intention that a person of status similar to his, or, perhaps we should say, even greater than himself, shall be present to put the case upon the other side; and that is an assurance from the Attorney-General, which, I know, will be carried out, and I hope it will be satisfactory to hon. Members. I have also been informed by my right hon. and learned Friend that it will he his intention to put the case in which he believes before the Judicial Committee himself.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the fact that the Attorney-General is himself a member of the Select Committee of Privileges and took part in all these discussions? In these circumstances, is it really proper that he should appear before the Judicial Committee and advance before the Judicial Committee a view which was contrary to the view ultimately arrived at by the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Butler: I am not quite sure that the latter part of the hon. Member's statement is quite correct, that it was a view contrary, because there was a majority of the Select Committee in favour of referring the question to the Judicial Committee. I do not think it at all improper for the Attorney-General to put the case on the one side provided that the case is put equally strongly on the other side. I think it is essential that it should be so put. I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend and see whether there is any impropriety, but I shall mention to him that my initial reaction is that there is no such impropriety.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Ede: In many ways this is a day of great humiliation for the House. For the first time in its long history it is asserting that it is not


sure what its privileges are, and the Lord Privy Seal will have the distinction of being the first person to move that the House collectively should seek a view outside the House as to what exactly its privileges are.
I do not propose to discuss the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), because this is a general issue which might have arisen under the same Attorney-General at any time on any other case where a Member was threatened with the issue of a writ. Therefore, I think it is better not to introduce the case which my right hon. Friend submitted to Mr. Speaker, who, at any rate, is a lawyer of great distinction himself and who found that there was a prima facie case of a breach of Privilege.
That was on 8th April. I hope that the House will note from the Fifth Report of the Committee of Privileges that it was not until the eighth meeting of the Committee that we heard my right hon. Friend or saw the documents about which complaint was made. Such a delay is unparalleled, I believe, in the history of the Committee of Privileges.
I am not anxious to say anything which would be contrary to the rules of the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman said that in the Committee we occupied a lot of our time in researches. Of course, when the Committee reports that it deliberated I suppose it may be thought that we were undertaking researches, but as soon as the Committee met the Attorney-General, without having given any consideration to the specific case which was submitted to us, submitted a document in which he said that there was no need for the Committee to consider the matter at all because the Act of 1770 made it quite clear that it was not a breach of Privilege to serve a writ on a Member. It is true that some of the arguments he advanced in favour of that course described in the first paper vanished with it amid some of the later papers which the Committee received, but his draft report was rejected by the Committee by eight votes to one.

Mr. S. Silverman: The one being himself.

Mr. Ede: I voted for my opinion. I expected the right hon. and learned Gentleman to vote for his. That was his

opinion, and he had a perfect right to vote in favour of it, even though all the other members of the Committee disagreed with him. I have been in a minority of one too often—

Mr. S. Silverman: So have I.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry for my hon. Friend. Sometimes I have had to come along to make it two.
I think the Lord Privy Seal will agree with me that that is' a summary of what our proceedings were.
This House in its long history has had to protect its privileges against great monarchs and has even had to protect itself against Attorney-Generals. Take the case of the attempted arrest of the five Members. That is usually dealt with as though one morning unexpectedly Charles I strode into the House and asked the loan of Mr. Speaker's Chair. But the day before the Attorney-General of that day, one Sir Edward Herbert, on the instructions of His Majesty King Charles I, went to the Lords to impeach them for treason, and the Lords, being a rather different body in those days from what it is in these, decided to refer it to a committee, and the next day the King came to get the five Members from the House. What happened then was owing to the resource of Mr. Speaker of the day, although he is alluded to by some of the historians as not a very courageous man. The answer given to the King on that demand was an answer of the House itself, "whose servant," Mr. Speaker Lenthall said, "I am." And when the matter had been finally settled after the return of the five Members to the City, the House of Commons took up the case of the Attorney-General and sent him to the Tower for fourteen days.
Let us be quite certain that this question of Privilege if taken outside the House means the end of Parliamentary democracy as we know it. I accept the interpretation of the Act of 1770 given by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I think that the later paragraphs of his draft report which were deleted from the Report, when we were considering it, by a majority, amply deal with the contention that was quite fairly put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that that Act deals with those wrongful acts which Members of


Parliament may do in their private capacities outside this House. It does not protect, and we should not ask it to protect, the man who does not want to pay his tailor's bill. It does not protect the man who, being left the trustee of an estate, wrongfully uses that position to the detriment of the beneficiaries of the trust.
When, after the Revolution of 1688, Parliament met, the Members were people who had an experience of Parliamentary life very different from that which we enjoy. They were living within three or four years of a time of Members of the House being heavily fined for their actions in Parliament, under litigation commenced by James II. And the Bill of Rights is entitled
An Act declaring the rights and liberties of the subject and settling the succession of the Crown.
Among the enormities alleged in the Bill of Rights against James II was that
By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parlyament and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses…
The Bill of Rights, before accepting William and Mary as the joint Sovereigns, then enacts that these proceedings are illegal, and it says that William, the Prince of Orange, had agreed with this view. It follows that up by declaring William and Mary to be the Sovereigns of the country.
The experience of the House of the attitude of the Crown caused the House to adopt the line
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament.
Those are the words of the Bill of Rights, and they represent the bargain made by the Convention of Parliament of 1688–89 with the Crown, on the conditions of which the Crown was settled on William and Mary.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House alluded to the fact that the Committee of 1810 did not have its Report either confirmed or rejected by the House. It was not considered, but, after all, the Members of the House who constituted that Committee were a very formidable group of lawyers. Their names are set out on page xxvii of the Fifth

Report from the Committee of Privileges. The offices which they held are also enumerated. They were:
Sir William Grant who was Master of the Rolls; Sir Vicary Gibbs, then Attorney-General and afterwards Lord Chief Baron and Lord Chief Justice of Common Pleas; Sir Thomas Plummer, the Solicitor-General; Mr. Campbell-Colquhoun the Lord Advocate, and also Mr. Spencer Perceval, who had been Attorney-General was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer and later became Prime Minister.
They did not have the benefit of the advice of the present Attorney-General, but from that day to this, so far as I can discover, no one has ever questioned their decision.
They were living only forty years after the passing of the Parliamentary Privilege Act, 1770. The circumstances in the minds of Parliament in enacting the Act of 1770 must have been known to them, just as we today have some knowledge, although think there is only one hon. Member remaining who was a Member in 1917, of what happened in 1917.
I believe that if we were to pass this Motion today we should be destroying the fundamental principle on which our security rests. I believe that our experience of the past and what we have seen happen in other countries in recent years make it a reprehensible thing to neglect the safeguard that was given us by the Bill of Rights in 1688. This matter was very nearly considered—and the considerations were very largely parallel with those which we are discussing today—in the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts which reported in 1939 and of which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker and the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) were members.
I know that there are some people who hanker after a precise and exact definition of Parliamentary privilege. To arrive at it would be such a feast for lawyers that I can say only that I view it with great terror. It was said in The Times this morning that this debate would be a "paradise for lawyers." As I have never recognised the company of lawyers as being one of the entrances into paradise, I thought that I had better speak in the debate before any such atmosphere was destroyed. I hope the House will allow me to read two of the recommendations from the Report of the


Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts, paragraphs 22 and 23:
Your Committee think it would be inadvisable to attempt by legislation or otherwise to define with precision the extent of the immunity from prosecutions under the Official Secrets Acts to which members of parliament are or ought to be entitled. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to draw a line between acts which are or ought to be permissible and acts which are or ought to be criminal. The privileges of parliament, like many other institutions of the British constitution, are indefinite in their nature and stated in general and sometimes vague terms. The elasticity thus secured has made it possible to apply existing privileges in new circumstances from time to time. Any attempt to translate them into precise rules must deprive them of the very quality which renders them adaptable to new and varying conditions, and new or unusual combinations of circumstances, and indeed, might have the effect of restricting rather than safeguarding members' privileges, since it would imply that, save in the circumstances specified, a member could be prosecuted without any infringement of the privileges of the House. 'The dignity and independence of the two Houses,' says Sir William Blackstone with great force, are in great measure preserved by keeping their privileges indefinite. If all the privileges of parliament were set down and ascertained, and no privilege to be allowed but what was so defined and determined, it were easy for the executive power to devise some new case, not within the line of privilege, and under pretence thereof to harass any refractory member and violate the freedom of parliament.'
Your Committee would emphasise a point mentioned in the Report which they made to the House in the last session of parliament, namely, that the privilege of freedom of speech enjoyed by members of parliament is in truth the privilege of their constituents. It is secured to members not for their personal benefit, but to enable them to discharge the functions of their office without fear of prosecutions civil or criminal. The Commons in their famous protestation of 1621"—
which, after all, is regarded as so important in our history that we keep the journal in which it was inscribed and from which it was torn in the Noe Lobby so that hon. Members can show it to constituents when they are conducting them round the Palace of Westminster—
declared the privileges of Parliament to be the birthright and inheritance of the subject. There are, no doubt, dangers even in the limited immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Acts secured to members by parliamentary privilege. But they are dangers which must be run if members are to continue to exercise their traditional right and duty of criticising the Executive. 'Parliaments without parliamentary liberties,' said Pymm, are but a fair and plausible way into bondage,' and it remains as true today as it was in 1610 that freedom of debate being once foreclosed, the essence of the liberty of parliament is withal dissolved.'

Mr. J. A. Leavey: I am interested in the question, but is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting, therefore, that in this case and in these circumstances the more we blur the edges of this the more we ensure the protection about which we are so deeply concerned? Is not there a marked distinction here between the danger that hon. Members of this House may suffer at the hands of the Executive and any challenge or danger they may suffer by challenge from a member of the public?

Mr. Ede: The point put by the hon. Gentleman does not arise in my mind. After all, when the present Minister of Defence was interviewed by the Attorney-General of the day with regard to something that it was said he was doing contrary to the Official Secrets Acts, that was something which had been conveyed to him by a constituent or, if not a constituent, at any rate a person with whom he was closely associated.

Mr. Piekthorn: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. Although I do not trust my memory entirely in these things, surely it was information which had come to the Minister in his capacity as a military officer and nothing to do with constituency work?

Mr. Ede: That was why I corrected what I said after having said "constituent" in the first place. As a matter of fact, I knew the father of the officer who told the Minister of Defence, the present Minister of Defence, of the matter on which the Question that he wanted to put was based.
I think that any attempt in this House to secure a precise definition of these privileges from an outside source is something that would be very detrimental indeed. I cannot think that in 1957 we should for the first time—and this is the amazing thing—express doubt as to our privileges arising from an Act that was passed 187 years ago. After all, the Report of the Committee of 1810 was not confirmed by the House. The Committee of 1837 did have its Report confirmed by the House, and they had no doubt on these matters.
This issue goes back even before our period of history, for I find that Euripedes, who is supposed to have died about


407 B.C., according to Milford's translation, said:
This is true liberty, when freeborn men, Having to advise the public, may speak free;
Which he who can, and will, deserves high praise:
If hon. Members of this House are put in the position where for a speech in the House—

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I think that he is misleading the House. I had the honour of serving with him on this Committee, and I am indebted to him for his service. But all we are asking is a legal interpretation particularly of Section 1 of the Act of 1770. There is no question of questioning the Bill of Rights or the rights of hon. Members under the Bill of Rights, or anything else.

Mr. Ede: I have the utmost respect for the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have served in more than one capacity. But if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council gives one answer to the question that is being submitted to it, it will he possible for any member of the public who feels that he has been affected by a statement made in the House or by a proceeding in Parliament to start an action. A writ may be issued, and while it is true that the Attorney-General does not think anyone would get very far with the proceedings, hon. Members would be put to some expense, not all of which would be recoverable, in taking preliminary steps to defend themselves.
I venture to say that if it had been put to any hon. Member of the House on the morning that the Attorney-General submitted his paper to the Committee of Privileges that it was possible to start an action against an hon. Member of this House for something he said in the House, it would have been treated as something not worth paying attention to. That is the issue at stake as I see it. Why should the House be the party to the dispute to stick its neck out and ask for an opinion which may be very inimical to its interests.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Might I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is a further embarrassment involved in that many, if not all, members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

deciding the matter will be Members of another place?

Mr. Ede: I do not think that their membership of another place is likely to influence members of the Privy Council very much. Let us be certain of this, that if it is not our privilege it is not the privilege of the Lords either. This is a privilege of Members of Parliament irrespective of the House in which they sit.
I hope that the House of Commons will not today set the precedent that the passing of this Motion would be. I hope that we shall retain as much as we possibly can questions of the privilege of Parliament in our own hands and not defer them to any other body, no matter how distinguished it is.

5.2 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: As a former member of the Committee of Privileges, I feel some delicacy about this matter. I want to make it clear that I shall certainly not, willingly or intentionally, say anything derogatory or discourteous about my former colleagues on that Committee. I also want to make it clear that nothing that I shall say must be taken to reflect in any way upon the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who has his remedy whatever way this matter eventually goes. The right hon. Gentleman has the qualified privilege that any citizen has in defending himself against proceedings, and if he acted, as I have not the slightest doubt he did, in good faith in the matter, he is adequately protected.
When I heard my right hon. Friend say that there was to be a free vote of the House upon this Motion, I was rather relieved, because it seemed to me a matter which needs very careful consideration and which ought to be considered in the light of the opinions which are expressed in the debate today. I must say that so far I have found myself in some difficulty in making up my mind as to any conclusion, and I do not suppose that I shall be able to do so until I have heard the whole debate. I must frankly say that the result upon my mind so far has been that after I had heard my right hon. Friend move the Motion I thought I should find difficulty in supporting it, but when I had heard the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) I was quite convinced that the Motion was a right one.
Perhaps I might follow that up, first, by explaining the reasons why I felt difficulty about my right hon. Friend's presentation of the matter, and, secondly, by explaining why my difficulty was somewhat removed by the right hon. Member for South Shields. I felt to begin with that there was a difficulty about the question of precedent. I had studied the matter as best I could. I found that there were only the Samuels case and the MacManaway case, and those were not cases of privilege. I thought at first, as the right hon. Gentleman apparently thought, that there was something in that, but when I came to consider it a little further I found that there was something very much in common in the three cases. They are all cases in which this House has been in doubt on a difficult matter of law. The House took the advantage of getting an opinion on those cases, and that is what I understand the House is being asked to do today.
I am sure the right hon. Member for South Shields would not be under such an impression, but there may be some hon. Members who really would feel that the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would in some way be legally binding on this House It would, indeed, be nothing except advice. It might very well be that when that advice had been given this House would then decide that certain action was required. As I understand the position, what we are being asked to do is to obtain an authoritative judicial opinion, and the need for that and the justification for that is surely confirmed by the fact that the right hon. Member for South Shields is not even prepared to admit that there is a legal question. He and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) think that, because they have their own view, there is no legal question at all. Is it not a very good reason for us to obtain an impartial and proper judicial opinion if we are otherwise to have people saying, "That is what think. Therefore, that is the law."? Therefore, on that point I feel that my doubts were rather resolved.
Another thought went through my mind, and it bears on what the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) said. He referred to the fact that some of the members of the Judicial Committee—indeed, probably almost all of them—would be Members of another place. If

the hon. Member has a chance to speak later on, I think there would be an even better argument for him. Let hon. Members imagine what would have happened if anyone had said in 1770 or 1670 "We propose to refer the privileges of the House of Commons to the Privy Council." What would have been said then? That is purely a debating point. Does anyone think that today by asking the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to advise us on a difficult question of law we are destroying our sovereignty? I would suggest that that is a very bad point indeed.
There are one or two matters upon which I should like to have the assistance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in due course and of any other hon. Member who can assist in our consultation today. I feel difficulty about the reference to the Privy Council for this reason. We are asked to refer a question of law, a question as to whether under the Act of 1770 certain consequences follow or do not follow. However, it has not yet been mentioned, except very indirectly, that there were two points of law involved and not one point of law.
The other point of law was whether the right hon. Gentleman was engaged in a proceeding in Parliament when he wrote the letter, and if he was not, then the whole of our discussion today is completely irrelevant, because under the Bill of Rights privilege can arise only if there is a proceeding in Parliament. Therefore, I suggest that we still require an answer to this question: Does not this Motion really put the cart before the horse? Have we not, first of all, to decide whether there is any proceeding in Parliament at all?
After all, the Committee of Privileges is considering a particular case. It is not considering an abstract reference. There is no reason at all for giving the right hon. Gentleman absolute protection—as I have said, I sincerely hope he does not need it. He has either got it or not got it under the Bill of Rights. We must decide that first and not last.
However, as things stand, this is the point of view from which I am worried about it. Let us suppose that we get a certain answer from the Privy Council. Will it not then follow that there is no need, in one alternative, for us to consider


the position at all as to whether the right hon. Gentleman was in a proceeding in Parliament? Where are we then? We are then left with the decision of the Committee of Privileges, which, I venture to say with the greatest respect, no lawyer with whom I have discussed it can really understand.
In the particular case, the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to a Minister, the Paymaster-General, but he wrote it in connection with a nationalised industry. It was admitted, and everyone can read it in the evidence, that it would have been precisely the same on that argument if the right hon. Gentleman had written direct to the nationalised industry. It has, in effect, been decided by the Committee of Privileges, so far, that a letter written by a Member of Parliament to a nationalised industry or to anyone connected with it, no matter how libellous it is, in what bad faith it is written, or how malicious it is, it is absolutely protected. That is the decision. Surely, the first thing in which everyone in this House is interested is whether that is really the position. If this reference goes to the Privy Council—

Mr. S. Silverman: I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would help me? He is making a very important point if he is right. Would he say where in the Report he is relying for his contention that the Committee would equally have decided that this was a proceeding in Parliament if my right hon. Friend had written not to the Minister but to the industry itself?

Sir L. Heald: May I read to the hon. Gentleman Question 439, on page 42 of the Report, in answer to Captain Waterhouse? It asks:
Suppose some Member was aggrieved about Customs and Excise, he would write to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury and he would air his grievance to him?—Yes, I have known of such a question.
Would that remain privileged?—I should have said yes, because, as an alternative, he could have put a Question on the Paper.
Very well. Then a private trader could write to the Coal Board direct on a matter of day to day administration, because you said that this is quite a proper thing to do to a nationalised industry?—Yes.
And if he were a Member of Parliament, that would he covered by Privilege?—In my view, yes.
Whatever he said?—Yes, I think that is so

Mr. S. Silverman: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way once again. He has read out an answer given to a question by a witness before the Committee of Privileges, but where did the Committee decide that?

Sir L. Heald: The Committee of Privileges—as I have said, I would never say anything to the contrary—is composed of very intelligent and logical people, and if that answer is given, that answer is a perfectly logical consequence because—

Mr. Silverman: No.

Sir L. Heald: The hon. Gentleman never likes information if it does not suit him, but I am going to give it to him.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The right hon. and learned Gentleman stopped short in reply to my hon. Friend. I think the witness goes on to say at the end of the answer to which he referred that it all depended on whether he could raise the matter in Parliament. If it was a matter which he could raise in—

Sir L. Heald: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I knew that he was going to be helpful: that is why I gave way to him.
The point is that the answer given was "because the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament," and if he writes to a nationalised industry and is a Member of Parliament he is protected.
I apologise for being lengthy, but I must get it right. May I add that the matter went further in Sir Edward Fellowes' evidence on page 42. The question was taken further and the point driven home in this way. The test is whether it is a matter which a Member of Parliament could raise in the House of Commons. Then the question was asked on page 44, and answered very rightly by the learned Clerk, that there is no matter which a Member cannot find a way of raising and that, therefore, everything a Member writes in a letter to anybody would be privileged on the decision of the Committee.
It ought to be emphasised—

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend? I think that he has been very clear in all he has said with this one exception. My


right hon. and learned Friend is quoting from the evidence given by the Clerk of the House at the end of the Report of the Committee of Privileges, but I do not think that he must take that as representing the Report of the Committee. The Report of the Committee in reference to this matter is clear. On page viii, paragraph 20 (a) and on page xix it states:
Tuesday, 30th July, 1957. Members all present. The Committee deliberated. Motion made, and Question put, That the letter dated 8th February, 1957, written by Mr. Strauss to the Paymaster General was protected by the Privilege of Freedom of Speech of a Member of Parliament.
The voting on that was eight to one. That is the conclusion. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend ought to draw a conclusion from the evidence of the Clerk of the House.

Sir L. Heald: I do not want to draw any conclusions from the evidence, I would like the House to draw conclusions from the Report. If I am right about paragraph 11, I think, with the greatest possible respect, that my right hon. Friend may want to amend what he has just said. Paragraph 11 says:
Where a Member of Parliament writes to a Minister concerning a Nationalised Industry and criticises the administration of that industry or the conduct of the Minister, the Statutory Authority or its subordinate Board and is not satisfied with the reply he has from the Minister, the Authority or the Board, it is a fair presumption that he will seek an opportunity to debate the matter in the House.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose—

Sir L. Heald: I wish the hon. Gentleman would let me read it. I do not mind him interrupting my speech, but I would prefer him not to interrupt when I am reading the paragraph.
That debate would certainly he a debate or proceeding in Parliament.
The basis of the argument is that the reason why something is a proceeding in Parliament is, apparently, because it might be a proceeding in Parliament. At any rate, it is not right that we should debate that matter now.
That is my understanding of it, and I am quite convinced that the point is a bad one. But that does not prove anything. I am in the same position as the right hon. Member for South Shields on the other point. Therefore, I should have thought that it might be said that both

these Statutes might be referred to the Privy Council, both the Bill of Rights and the other one. It is certainly a little difficult to see why we should put the cart before the horse. Indeed, those who accepted the argument on the 1770 Act and rejected the one that I have been putting on this one might be said to be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
That is a position on which I still feel considerable difficulty. We are in danger of putting on the record a decision which I believe to be thoroughly bad. That is said to follow a proceeding that took place on the Official Secrets Act, 1939. What the Committee of Privileges did was, rightly or wrongly, to accept the opinion of the Attorney-General as given to the 1939 Committee. It did not accept the opinion of the Attorney-General as given to the 1957 Committee. That may be right or wrong, but that is the position.
If this present matter goes to the Privy Council and comes back again in such a way, as it might do, as to dispose of the whole of it—that is what the right hon. Member for South Shields was afraid of—it might be said that there is no privilege at all. It then becomes entirely irrelevant.
I ask the House to consider this other most important point which I have been trying to explain, I must apologise, at length, but it is a difficult point. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman when he replies some kind of assurance that we shall be able to put the matter right and are not going to find that we are faced with the position that there is nothing more to discuss and that there is yet one more precedent for those who want to support this extreme extension of the privilege of Parliament.
I believe that we ought in this House to go with the greatest care on the matter of privilege. I thoroughly admire the exaltation of privilege that we had from the right hon. Member for South Shields, but he and others should realise that there are a great many people—certainly a number of my constituents—who think that we are being far too pompous and touchy about privilege in this House. We must be very careful what we are doing about it.
If I could be given some explanation concerning how this other point is to


be handled—I think it is a more important point from the practical point of view than the one with which we are concerned now—I should be prepared to accept the reference, having regard to the controversy and the difficulty of the point, provided we recognise that all we are doing is to ask for an authoritative legal opinion on a difficult point.
I feel, however, that the time has come when we must seriously consider how we can put our House in order in relation to privilege. That is expected of us by the country. By all means let us retain the guardianship of our privilege, but let us be very careful that we are not led mistakenly into extending it. Though it might be said that the example I have given can be described as a construction or interpretation of privilege, who could really doubt that it would be an extension of privilege to find that there would be absolute privilege for a false, libellous and malicious letter written by a Member of Parliament in a matter which only by the remotest likelihood would come before the House at all?

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I seek clarification of what my right hon. and learned Friend wants, so that I may put it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is shortly returning to the Chamber? My right hon. and learned Friend, I understand, wants to be quite certain that whatever the decision of the Judicial Committee, whether it be, so to speak, a liberal decision or a strict decision on the interpretation of the Act, this House is still free to take what action it likes on the remains of the findings of the Committee of Privileges. Is that correct?

Sir L. Heald: And, might I add, will have the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Butler: Not only should I like to discuss that with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, but on my own authority, on behalf of the Government in regard to Parliamentary time, for example, I should like to make it quite clear that when we have this Report, we must give the House an opportunity not only of discussing it, but also of reserving its rights when it receives the advice for which it has asked.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I have been a member of the Committee of Privileges and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), was Chairman for a time. I greatly enjoyed the work.
We are dealing, and the Committee have been dealing, with a subject in which, generally speaking, there is no Statute law, although we have come up against Statute law this afternoon. There are no Standing Orders, so to speak, on the matter; there are no regulations. Over the years, therefore—and very many years they have been—not only the Committee, but the House itself, has had to find its way into doing the right thing to the best of its ability.
In a great democratic Assembly of this sort, it would have been perfectly easy for the House to have got into a muddle and to have engaged in illogical and inconsistent decisions; but as a whole, I think that the work of the House and of the Committee of Privileges in the realm of Privilege stands up as being exceedingly good work indeed. That makes it all the more important that we should be careful in the handling of the Report, which presents the House with exceedingly difficult and, in some ways, new matters.
I have no violent feelings as to whether the legal question should go to the Judicial Committee. I should have been disposed to think that there should not be any great harm if that were done, because when the matter comes back here I should have thought that the House could do what it liked about it. In any case, oven if the Judicial Committee were to say. "This is what the Statute law means," although it might be difficult for the House of Commons perhaps to say, "We do not care what the Statute law means, even in relation to us," presumably the House could amend the Statute law if it wanted to do so. I should have thought, therefore, that there was a remedy.
What I am anxious about is to know what is going to the Judicial Committee. It seems to me that the biggest question raised by the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) is not the question of the right to


speak freely in Parliament, but the question of the right to write freely outside Parliament. That is the question which arises, but that is not going to the Judicial Committee. I really cannot understand—I am, of course, subject to correction and the Attorney-General will be replying—why that question is not included in the terms of reference under the Motion to the Privy Council. When one reads the Report, there are all sorts of arguments about this particular point, both the one way and the other.
I would have been a bit happier if the Committee, in addition to hearing at length our very able Clerk of the House of Commons who gave the most valuable evidence, had also heard at greater length my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall. No doubt he had an opportunity for going on longer than he wanted, but I agree with him that I do not think there was much point in so doing. I should have thought that the other parties to this trouble—the London Electricity Board or its Chairman—might conceivably have been called in by the Committee and that the Committee might have heard what they had to say.
The other thing that I could not follow about the proceedings was that before the correspondence was produced in relation to the examination of the Clerk of the House, there emerged the fact that he had not seen the correspondence.

Mr. Ede: Nobody had seen it.

Mr. Morrison: That makes it all the worse. I really cannot understand how a Committee can adjudicate on a matter of this kind, in which the letters, and, indeed, the language of the letters, are a point of material importance, without their being produced. Whoever was responsible for holding up the correspondence, I do not know. I do not think it was fair either to the members of the Committee or to the witnesses.

Mr. Charles Doughty: If the Report is correct the whole way through, what difference would it make what was in the correspondence? If the Report is correct, it is absolutely privileged. Therefore, even if it contains offensive and obscene expressions, it is still absolutely privileged.

Mr. Morrison: One of the questions that the House will have to consider—it will come up, incidentally, today—is whether the Committee was right in conceding absolute Privilege to that correspondence, and secondly, whether the actual terms of the letters or of the correspondence have a relevance on the question of whether absolute Privilege should be given in a case of that sort. My point, therefore, still stands.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields that the House must be jealous about guarding its privileges. It is important that we should be able to function freely and without fear of anybody in all our proceedings of debate and speech, in the House, in Committee, and so on. It is a new question that arises about correspondence with Ministers.
We not only have to consider our own rights and the liberties of Parliament—and, of course, it is the collective liberties of Parliament with which we are concerned rather than the rights of individual Members—but we have to be careful about extending our privileges. We keep on saying that we will not do it, though I think we are coming to the edge of doing so in this Report. It is often said that we would not extend them, but we are on the verge of it today.
We must consider not only our rights and privileges and our freedom as Members of a great Parliamentary institution, as it is vital that we should, but we really must consider the rights of people outside, also. I am a little alarmed that, in recent years—it may have happened before, for all I know, not the House as a whole but some Members of the House have become a little too touchy. After all, we are politicians. Being politicians, we have knocked a lot of other politicians about.
There have been constant wars between the politicians and the newspapers and the newspapers have often waged war against the politicians. I think that nearly all of us have enjoyed every minute of the combat which has gone on. We must take account not only of protecting our own rights but of protecting the rights of people outside, the rights of the ordinary citizen. He, also, has rights.
What worries me, and what I wish were going to the Judicial Committee also, if it can be considered within the


ambit of the meaning of the Statute law, is the question whether, in the circumstances, correspondence outside Parliament of this nature and wording is affected by the Statute law, and how. I should have liked the Judicial Committee to consider, also, what, if any, was the effect of the Statute law upon that.
If a Member of Parliament writes to a Minister, he is entitled to sympathetic consideration as regards his rights, and I should not be disposed to take the view that in no circumstances should Privilege be granted. But it depends on what is written. The letter of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall could have been a little stronger than it was, but it was fairly strong for all that. It said that he considered
the behaviour of the London Electricity Board a scandal which should be instantly remedied.
Those words are to be found at the foot of page viii if the Report, and at the top of the next page my right hon. Freind's letter goes on to say:
It is considered a scandal in the sense…
and so on. Then he goes on to talk about "strong suspicion". It is perfectly true that my right hon. Friend could have been more violent in his language and could have attacked the Board in terms for moral imperfection, for being crooks, and so forth. But he is on the way to doing that.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Why not, if he believes it?

Mr. Morrison: It is all very well for my hon. and learned Friend to say, "Why not?". If he is going to say that, any Member of the House can write to any Minister of the Crown saying anything he likes about private citizens outside the House.

Mr. Mallalieu: He is saying it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Assuming that what my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Morrison: Some of my hon. Friends are having a good afternoon. I find that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) gets value for his money in the way of interruptions, and the chances are that he will make a speech as well later.
It is all very well to ask why someone should not be free to say what he likes.

Are we to lay down the doctrine that any Member of Parliament can write to any Minister and say anything he likes about a person outside? The come-back to that has been to say that he can say it here. That is true, of course, and, if I may say so, this is the right place to say it, because, if it is said here, somebody can answer back. Either the Minister or an hon. Member familiar with the subject can answer. It is quite different when it goes to a Minister by correspondence.

Mr. Paget: Will my right hon. Friend permit me to say that it seems to me that—

Mr. Silverman: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is having a good afternoon.

Mr. Paget: —we are dealing much less with our privileges than with the privilege of constituents. What we normally have to deal with in this kind of thing is not a letter which a Member himself writes but the letter he receives and forwards, and unless that is absolutely privileged—as think it is, or ought to be—we are endangering the democratic channel whereby the individual can go to the fountainhead of government.

Mr. Morrison: I do not agree that Parliamentary Privilege is the privilege of the constituent. It is the privilege of this institution, functioning as an institution. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has gone very far, even farther than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu). He is now asserting that a constituent can write to a Member of Parliament anything he likes about any other citizen, of the most unfair, libellous, or abusive character, and that is to be privileged.
Let us suppose that a constituent writes to a Member of Parliament about a workman employed by, for instance, one of the nationalised industries, by the Post Office, or by somebody else. He may be actuated by malice and spite and he may say the most terrible things about that workman, about the quality of his work, alleging laziness or dishonesty, reflecting upon his morals—heaven knows what.
This person writes to the Member, and the Member writes to the Minister. The Minister may pass on the letter to the nationalised industry, or whoever it may


be. I must say that, from the point of view of the liberty of the citizen and the rights of the ordinary, common or garden man-in-the-street, that is a bit "hot". As a Member of Parliament, I will claim all the privileges to which this House collectively is entitled, but I will not claim privileges that deny the reasonable liberty and rights of the ordinary citizen outside. I am afraid that we might be doing that.

Mr. W. R. Williams: That seems to be giving the whole case away.

Mr. Morrison: I can express my own opinion. The Whips are off, and we can all say what we like. Hon. Members can say something different later if they wish.
The rights of the citizen matter. Let us take the case of a teacher. Suppose someone is spiteful about a teacher or, perhaps, not necessarily spiteful, but reckless in what he says, accusing a teacher of doing something wrong in the course of his professional duties, or, even apart from his professional duties, alleging that the teacher is immoral, a homosexual, or dishonest. That letter may be passed on to the Minister of Education. If the Minister is careful, he may not send it to the local authority, but on the other hand, the letter may reach the local authority.
While it may be argued, in the new circumstances, that correspondence with the Minister about nationalised industries shall have its right and proper degree of Privilege, I doubt whether the right to Privilege should extend to language which is spiteful, malicious or careless. Therefore, I believe that there is a duty on the Member of Parliament, as there would be a duty on the constituent of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, to be rather careful in his language, being considerate and restrained in what he says, while making clear what he means. It is for these reasons that I am a little doubtful whether the reference to the Judicial Committee, if it is to go at all, goes far enough.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall was quite entitled to take the matter where he took it. He was quite frank in saying that he had an interest in the matter, as he so declared when it was brought before the House. I am concerned not in any way to derogate from

the reasonable privileges of this House. I again insist that it is this House, in it; corporate capacity, with which we are concerned. The free functioning of the parliamentary institution is the thing that matters. We have all been taught that, and I think that it is what we all believe.
I think, however, that we want the House to take into account the rights of the ordinary, common people outside, even the rights of the chairmen of nationalised industries. They are God's children, too. They have to be taken into account, and I think that the House would be unwise, in asserting its own undoubted rights and privileges, to run the risk of M.P.s in the future, being unjust and unfair to the ordinary citizens outside.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: I hope that the House will forgive me if I make some reflections in a rather scattered way on the point immediately before us. I will explain to the House why.
It would, I think, be possible, as I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), which I much admired, has demonstrated, to argue the main question upon this Motion, but on the whole I think it undesirable to do so, upon the assumption that we are bound to have a full debate sooner or later upon the main question—should like the Front Bench to listen to this sentence—and that when we do have a full debate on the main question, there can be no suggestion then of anything being precluded from the debate that would have been admitted had this debate not taken place.
I think that it is most important that we should all be assured from our leaders and, with respect, from the Chair, that that is so. If that is so, then I think that as far as possible we had better confine ourselves to the preliminary question immediately before us. I do not mean strictly, but mainly.
I have some delicacy in this matter, too. People spoke of their delicacy because they were lawyers, and because they were not lawyers, and because they were members of the Committee of Privileges. My delicacy is partly because I


was a member of the Sandys Committee. Looking back upon it, I do not feel certain that it was altogether right, in its conclusions or reasons, and, also, I have some delicacy because for a long period of my life I was paid what were to me considerable sums for speaking as an expert on the history of Privilege. I should not like those who then paid me to observe the state of my mind upon the subject now and to suppose that they were swindled then; because I have, in fact, forgotten all about it, and have not properly swotted it up, I beg the House to believe through no fault of my own.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman for Lewisham, South, if I may begin by saying something unkind, but not meant unkindly, had not perhaps read the Report so often or so attentively as he might have, because I also thought—and this is the kind part of my comment upon him—that in his speech there was much more common sense than in almost if not quite any of the speeches before: and his main commonsense argument was this, that the Motion before us speaks of proceedings in Parliament and says nothing about writings outside Parliament. He did not hesitate over the fact that if the Report is right then writings outside Parliament are literally as a matter of course proceedings inside Parliament. I entirely agree with the way his subconsciousness worked.
I think that when a series of syllogisms makes it possible to reject a piece of obvious pantomime nonsense, it is the syllogisms one should reject, and not accept the pantomime nonsense at the end. I think that most of the reality so far was brought into this debate by the right hon. Gentleman for Lewisham, South. I agree with him on this also, with the utmost respect for the Attorney-General and for the learned Clerks who serve this House, that I think that it is a pity that in such a matter, the litigation, so to speak, should be by way of examination and to some extent cross-examination of what are called witnesses, who are really a sort of expert witnesses and not at all or very little witnesses of fact. I think that it is a pity in such litigation means should not be found of having, so to speak, an advocatus diaboli. No doubt the Attorney-General is the devil of an advocate, but he cannot properly play the part of an advocatus diaboli, and I think

it would have been easier if that had been possible.
I began by saying that I was once an historian and have now forgotten it all. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was ever an historian, but he has evidently remembered it all. He put it in a report which the Committee has cut out and he gave most of it to us this afternoon.

Mr. Ede: I did not put any of it in the report.

Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise. I should have put it in the passive. It was put in, but not accepted. I do not think that it is true that this is the first time, as he said earlier in his speech later he said that it was the first time arising out of the 1770 Statute, which is another matter—I do not think that it is the first time that the House has admitted uncertainty about definition of its own privileges or even has sought advice from outside, although I willingly admit that it is a very long time since that was done.
My main objection to his history—I did not think that it was all very good, but that might be professional jealousy—is that it assumes that the House was always a democratic body though every Member until, historically speaking, the day before yesterday, treated a democrat as a term of abuse. Secondly, that his history stops just before it begins to be interesting. It all reposes on the assumption that this House is and always was directly concerned all the time in fighting against the Executive and that if any man is to be called upon to shed his blood the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to leap into the breach. But, of course, in this matter, it is the Executive that is trying to extend its powers—make no mistake—because what the Committee is doing is basing this Report, for what I think in common sense cannot be denied to be an extension of Privilege, upon extending the power of Ministers. It is based surely on the assumption that Ministers may not only, as we all know they may, refuse to answer any particular Questions, but may—I use the words in no kind of disrespect to the Chair or to the Table, but in more or less co-operation with the Chair and the Table—cut out any category of Questions, and have, in fact, cut out the whole category of


questions on day-to-day administration of the nationalised industries. That is what the thing is based upon.
What the Committee is trying to do is to extend the power of Privilege, with a lot of heroic drum and trumpet stuff about standing up to the Executive, in order to increase the power of the Executive. That is what this House is trying to do this evening. Let us be clear about it. That is first of my points.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend permit me one question? He mentioned a statutory responsibility, but Ministers also have a statutory responsibility in requiring that he nationalised boards should pay their way, taking year with year. That is written into all the statutes. If a Member of Parliament considers that by a particular commercial transaction no contribution is being made by a particular board to pay its way, taking year with year, is it not the responsibility of that Member to draw the attention of the responsible Minister to the fact that the board is not conducting its affairs in a statutory fashion?

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not proposing to define the responsibilities of Members or, at this minute, to recommend alterations in the rules about Questions. All I am saying is that effectively three things are being asked by the Committee. They are: (a) it shall be allowed to assume that writings outside Parliament are proceedings inside Parliament; (b) it shall be allowed to assume that Ministerial arrogance of the right to exclude a lot of public business shall be effective for the protection of Ministers but, at the same time, (c) shall operate to expose members of the public to the sort of letters which we have now before us. I do not say that the letter was not a proper one but other letters, even if they had the same intention, might be extremely improper.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who is sitting on my right, said that what we ought to get from the Privy Council was nothing but advice. The point of order to Mr. Speaker which I temerariously ventured upon in an interruption was, "Let us understand: decide or advise, and advice upon what? Upon the meaning of a Statute?" Hon. Members have talked, and my right hon. and learned Friend slipped into talking, of destroying

our sovereignty if we demanded too much privilege or did not get enough privilege. Our sovereignty, in so far as there is any real sense in which the House of Commons has sovereignty, consists in what has become a legal fact, the omnicompetence of statute and what has become the political fact that if 51 per cent. of the House of Commons wants something to be statute it is statute, and if not, not.
It is statute that the Privy Council is being asked to comment upon. It will not do to talk, as some hon. Members have, I think, and as I thought, reading the Report, some members of the Committee obviously thought, that the Bill of Rights is something over and above statute. It is not. It is at least arguable that it is something a good deal less than statute. How could there be a Parliament if it were not summoned by the Crown? I do not want to go into that point now. Nobody in this House has suggested—and if it were suggested, it would be the easiest way to get the unicameral constitution that some people want—that a Resolution in this House on a matter of Privilege could do no less than alter the meaning of statute.
I understand that that is not now proposed. If it is not proposed and we are to ask advice, it is a queer, curious, paradoxical think, as we will realise if we stop to think of it, that the House of Commons, led by one or two of Her Majesty's principal Ministers, the executives most unmistakably, is to ask the Crown to ask the Privy Council, that is to say, historically the most executive and still, in a real sense, the most, so to speak, vestigially executive of all possible legal authorities, to give advice about what a statute means. Suppose the Council says, "We are not going to give advice unless we know first whether it will be taken". It will not, but would that be improper? It seems to me that the Council is being put into a very difficult situation if it is not. I suppose, that, in effect, the House must consider itself morally precluded from rejecting advice given by such an authority on such a topic. Suppose that is it. Then, if that is it, ought the House not first to have faced the difficult question which it ran away from?

Mr. Walter Elliot: Suppose we say that, all the same, that is not it.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not know what "it" is.

Mr. Elliot: My hon. Friend used the word "it" and said "that is not it".

Mr. Pickthorn: It will be extremely difficult if we are to begin by assuming that we are precluded from disagreeing. Yet I cannot see any way by which I personally could think it right to ask the Privy Council to offer an interpretation of a Statute and afterwards think it right to say, "We shall pay no attention to that". I should have thought that the Committee of Privileges might have decided that if the Statute of 1770, which, I think, has gathered a disproportionate importance in this matter, has the meaning presumed by the Attorney-General, then so-and-so; if not, then so-and-so else. The House might well say, "This is a legal and not a privelege question and we shall ask the Privy Council about it". I see great objection to doing it the present way round.
There are one or two other things that I wanted to say. I have said the things I think it most important to say at this stage. "The Acts which restricted privilege," said my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He quite rightly described certain statutes as Acts which restricted privilege, but later on he said that there was no question of touching the Bill of Rights. That Bill is a statute, like any other. We have to face the fact that statute is the highest authority which this House is capable of participating in and, therefore, that is no longer true.
In the old days this House was fighting for its privileges in order that it should become, first a part of the governing machinery, then, the part of the governing machinery. In the course of those fights—I hope that I shall not have to go to the Clock Tower for this—I incline to bet that at least seven times out of ten at the important crossroads this House made what was historically and legally speaking at the time the wrong decision, but what has, in fact, been the law of Parliament ever since. The House should not any longer be under that temptation. The House now is in a position to do anything it likes by statute. If it is to say it is in a position to do anything it likes by Resolution and that anything which it chooses

to describe as proceedings in Parliament is proceedings in Parliament, I am quite sure it is going to get in wrong.
On the whole, I think that I shall not vote on this particular Motion, but I am not quite sure. I am not quite sure which tendency it would have to pass it or not to pass it, but I am quite certain that no one in the House should take for granted the natural reaction we all have, "I am for the House of Commons," like being Cambridge on Boat Race Day, and so on. I am quite sure that we should avoid that temptation like the devil, or, even more than the right hon. Member for South Shields.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I can understand, after having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), the residuary confusion which leaves him uncertain as to which way he should vote.
As far as I am concerned, I wish to say very little indeed with regard to the important point which I congratulate the Committee of Privileges on having had the courage to decide. I think it was right to decide it, and I think it decided it rightly. That is, that this letter was a procedure in Parliament—

Mr. Pickthorn: A "proceeding in Parliament", not a "procedure".

Mr. Paget: A "proceeding," which is what I said and what I meant.

Mr. Pickthorn: No, it was not.

Mr. Paget: There seems a certain nervousness with regard to privilege because some unworthy privileges have been claimed on occasion by hon. Members who have been far too sensitive to Press criticism. I think all of us recognise that and wish profoundly that some hon. Members would show more sense, but this is something wholly different.
The purpose of privilege is to enable Parliament to do its job. One of the essential jobs of a democratic Parliament—indeed, this is the justification for geographical constituencies—is that each individual voter in the country shall have his own Member of Parliament and that Member of Parliament should be the conduit pipe by which he is the representative to go to the source of Government, and it is essential that that conduit pipe


shall be kept open. That is essentially what we are discussing here today. If my constituent writes to me and says the Coal Board is a gang of twisters who have delivered him a sack of rock instead of coal, it is my duty to pass that on to the Ministry of Power, or, if it be more convenient, to side-track it to the Coal Board itself. That is a proceeding which must be absolutely protected.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Supposing the constituent says to the hon. and learned Member that a particular employee of the Coal Board is a twister and ought to get the sack, would he think he would have no responsibility then?

Mr. Paget: I would take precisely the same action. Where we create public authorities, it is the public's right to make its criticism and be free to do so. It is not the slightest use to say that it can be qualified by saying, "It is all right, it is done without malice, as long as it is done believing the charge to be entirely true." If I pass on that charge, I do not believe it to be true, but it is none the less my duty as a Member of Parliament to publish it to the Minister, to bring it to the Minister. I would not be protected by qualified privilege because I do not believe it to be true. I merely pass it on as is my duty, and that is my constituent's privilege.
If I do not do that, how can I or any other Member of Parliament, or, indeed, my constituent himself whenever he wishes to get his complaint against Government off his chest, be prepared to face the absolutely ruinous cost of a libel action? It is no liberty at all if the bottomless pocket of the State or of a State board can be marshalled in the courts against one. That is ruin, and it is the ruin of the effective working of Parliament. I say that this is the most valid and most valuable form of privilege because it is not primarily the privilege of a Member; it is the privilege of the public to have a Parliament that works properly, and there is not a Parliament that works properly otherwise. It is the right of the individual to "blow his top" against Government and have his complaint—reasonable or unreasonable, wild or sober—brought to the fountainhead of Government. That seems to me to be of the essence of democracy.

Mr. Angus Maude: I wonder if the hon. and learned Member remembers—whatever he thought of the decision of the House then—that some years ago, after a debate in which the argument turned precisely on this question of whether privilege was for the protection of constituents or for the protection of Parliament, the House of Commons, in a Division which included a great deal of cross-voting, deciding that privilege did not extend to the letter of the constituent in the case of the hon. Member for Seven-oaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) and the Bishop of Rochester?

Mr. Paget: I remember that case particularly well. The decision there was that a Member of Parliament did not commit a breach of privilege by referring the letter he received from a constituent to that constituent's spiritual chief.

Mr. Maude: If, in fact, it follows, if what the hon. and learned Member is suggesting is true, that the privilege of Parliament exists to protect the communications of constituents rather than the privilege of this House, then it must be as true of the case of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the Bishop of Rochester as of this one.

Mr. Paget: No. With great respect, that does not apply at all. What privilege exists to do is to protect the working of the House. The working of this House is a need of the public, it is a requirement of the public and the thing is privileged whilst it is within those channels—whilst it is a proceeding of this House, as the Committee found here—coming from the constituent, through the Parliamentary machinery of the Member, to the board or the Minister responsible. If, in fact, the Member passes it on to somebody else, that to some of us may seem rather a peculiar view of an hon. Member's own duty taken by himself, but it takes it outside what I have described as the conduit pipe, which is privileged.
I have been pulled a little further on this by interruptions, but that does not seem to me the question we are discussing here. That is the question which the Committee of Privileges had the courage to decide for itself. Having had the courage to interpret for itself—I think quite rightly—the Bill of Rights, why does it then proceed to funk what seems


to me the lesser obstacle and say, "We will pass the decision on the 1770 Statute to somebody else"?
By doing that we seem to be surrendering our prerogative and our rights, for in this issue it is we, the House of Commons, who are the supreme court, not the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Indeed, if we get a decision from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council it will only be passed back to us, as a court of appeal sitting above that Committee, to take the final decision. That does not seem to me to be a wholly respectful way to treat the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which on other matters is the highest court in the Empire.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. and learned Member go a little further and say that if a Statute which may have been intelligible in days gone by becomes unintelligible in the changed circumstances of today, this House has a perfectly clear duty to change the Statute so that everybody understands it?

Mr. Paget: Frankly, that is irrelevant to the present issue because when my right hon. Friend wrote his letter the Statute had not been changed. We have to consider things as they are, not as they might be in future. That is what we are deciding here. It is our duty as the supreme court on the question of privilege to take that decision, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was perfectly right in saying that this is the first time in our history that we have ever lacked the courage to take that decision. It is true that in the MacManaway case and in the Burdett case the House referred the question to the Judicial Committee, but those were questions as to who, according to the law, was a Member of this House, and the last word in that question is something which the House has not claimed and which indeed it expressly repudiated when it rescinded the Resolution in Wilkes' case.
After the conclusion of the Wilkes case this House said. "It is for the law and the courts to settle who is and who is not privileged to sit here," but it has never said, "It is for the law or the courts to settle what are the privileges of this

House, necessary for its working," because that is a question which is quite unfitting for the courts. What is necessary for the proper working of our House is something which we alone can understand and which we alone can judge, and it has always been our prerogative to judge it.

Mr. Walter Elliot: The hon. and learned Member is not addressing himself to the question just asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). It is absolutely fundamental and crucial to the issue which we are discussing. If this Statute lays down certain things, it is then surely for us to define in another Statute what is our conception of those things, but it is not for this House to claim that it is above Statutes. It is the privilege of the House to define its privileges and to have them laid down, but it is surely by no means a privilege of this House to override statutes.

Mr. Paget: Certainly it is not the privilege of this House to override Statutes, but it is our judicial function to interpret the Statutes upon this issue. In the same way as we have interpreted the Bill of Rights, so it is our judicial duty to interpret the Statutes. With regard to privilege, the Committee of Privileges performs a judicial duty on behalf of the House. It is a judicial duty in which we are the supreme court, and in the process of that judicial duty we have to interpret the Statutes. If it were decided to have evidence other than that of the Attorney-General, who usually advises the Committee upon these matters, and of the other considerable lawyers who serve upon the Committee, it would be perfectly open to the Committee to call the Lord Chief Justice and any other judge before it to ask his views on the Statute, and indeed to ask him to consult his brother judges before he gave evidence before us. But the decision of the Judicial Committee and of any judge who came before the Committee would be evidence and no more than evidence. The decision must ultimately be taken by us. It must be a decision interpreting the Statute. On that we may need help, guidance and evidence, but we cannot shelve off the decision to somebody else, which it seems to me we propose to do here.

Mr. Elliot: Would not the hon. and learned Member agree that if, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, the Statute is unclear, then it is much better that the Statute should be put down in clear terms than that there should be a dispute about it?

Mr. Paget: Precisely. But if the Statute is unclear now, we have now to interpret it. The question is whether we interpret an unclear Statute or whether the Judicial Committee interprets an unclear Statute. It happens to be our job to do so and not the Committee's job. That is all there is to it. It is for the Government to decide later whether they want a better Statute. Let them put it down. I am all for it. But that point does not arise here.

Mr. Elliot: That is exactly the Motion. The Motion suggests that if it requires to be clarified, it should be clarified. It is precisely and exactly that point.

Hon. Members: Clarified by us.

Mr. Paget: I give up. I will not try to explain again.

Mr. Elliot: So do I.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: In rising to support the Motion, I should explain that to a large extent I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and to a large extent I agree with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), whom I should like to congratulate on his robust speech.
In addressing to the House the few remarks which I propose to make this evening, I want to make it clear that nothing I say has any particular revelance to the conduct of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), whatever the contents of his letter may have been. It has often been said, I think rightly, that we in this House are inclined to be a little too touchy about what is said about us collectively and individually. One thing is certain: it ill becomes a nationalised industry to be any more touchy. Like hon. Members, they are people who are shot at and criticised individually and collectively, and they should take it in the way that we take it, whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the absolute or

qualified privilege which a Member of the House enjoys.
At the commencement of every Session, Mr. Speaker, you on our behalf send a Resolution to Her Majesty claiming that our ancient privileges shall be maintained, and a Message comes back, I think from the Lord Chancellor, that they will be so extended for the present Session. They are renewed again at the beginning of the following Session. I hope that nothing I say this evening will lead anybody to believe that I think any of those privileges should be curtailed, cut down or not exercised. I am equally firmly of the opinion, however, that when in the early part of the eighteenth century, 1702 or 1703, a Resolution was passed
That neither House of Parliament, have power, by any vote or declaration, to create to themselves new privileges, not warranted by the known laws and customs of Parliament.
the right course was taken. We should be wrong to give an interpretation to our ancient privileges which in my view would not be borne out by the Acts.
A good deal of reference has been made to the Bill of Rights, and one always imagines that this was the commencement of the privileges which the Committee of Privileges was discussing in its Report. I need hardly remind the House that the words were:
The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.
In fact, that only reinforces the earlier Privilege of Parliament, because in 1512 Richard Strode, a Member of this House at the time, had proceedings taken against him in the Stannary Court for introducing a Bill in Parliament, something which is frequently done nowadays.
In 1667, the Commons resolved that this was a general Act declaratory of the ancient privileges of Parliament. So, like so many of our privileges, it started only to protect one particular Member improperly attacked in the court, and then, by Resolution, was declared to be a general privilege of Parliament.
The words that I have read out were limited to proceedings in Parliament, and here I should like to express my disagreement with the views of the members of the Committee who said that a letter written to a Minister is a proceeding in Parliament. It is not; it is a proceeding


out of Parliament. No one knows exactly what a proceeding in Parliament is. The 15th Edition of Erskine May, in page 61 says:
An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognised kinds of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, etc., or presenting a petition or a report from a Committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking.
All those things relate to proceedings in Parliament; to proceedings in this Chamber or in the Standing Committee rooms, and cannot, in my view—though I know that other hon. Members take a different view—be held to include a letter written by a Member to a Minister, very likely from the Member's private house or office, and the reply being sent back to that address.
It is no answer to that to say, "Oh, well, if he was not satisfied with the answer, he could, if he had so wished, have raised it by some means in Parliament." It may be a method of convenience—it clearly is—that instead of raising every single constituency question we get—whether or not a constituent has a telephone, or is satisfied or dissatisfied with some particular action—we should be able to put down a Question or apply for an Adjournment debate. That is a convenience of Parliament. As a habit it is increasing daily, but, because that habit is increasing, it does not make it a proceeding in Parliament. By extending the definition so that proceedings out of Parliament are included in proceedings in Parliament we are going against the Resolution of 1702 whereby we must not extend our privileges—

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the hon. and learned Member agree that whichever is the right view, that reached by the Committee of Privileges or that expressed by himself, as to whether a particular proceeding is in Parliament or is not, would he agree that it is a matter for this House to determine, and is not a question which should be referred to the Judicial Committee for advice?

Mr. Doughty: I certainly agree. That is why it is not being referred. There is no reason why we should not form a Committee to decide that very point. But the point that we are being asked to refer today is quite a different one, and, that is why I support the Motion. We are

referring only the question of the 1770 Act. Why should we not? The wording of that Act is obscure, but, if it is any consolation to the members of the Committee who drafted their excellent Report, I agree with their view that it does not in any way detract from the Bill of Rights.
The wording of the 1770 Act is not very clear, and if one put on it a strict or very legalistic interpretation it might, perhaps be held, as a subsequent Statute, to overrule the Bill of Rights. If it does, what does it matter to us? How long would it take us to put through an amending Act simply repealing that Statute? It could be done by a Private Member's Bill. There is not the slightest difficulty in that at all. But we should know exactly where we are, and at present we do not. Why should the Government introduce a Bill now to amend the 1770 Act when such a Bill might be entirely unnecessary—

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is referring to the Committee's Report. Does he accept paragraph 18 of the Report, in page viii:
…when the matter comes before the Court,"—
that is, assuming what I call the strict interpretation of the 1770 Act to be right—
he can then claim that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings as he is entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights of 1688.
Does he accept that?

Mr. Doughty: I would certainly accept that as being correct because, if an action is commenced, the Member, of course, would put in a defence, and that court might then have to decide whether or not the Member's defence was correct. But I do not think that it is a proper matter to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for advice, because if any objection were put forward, whether statutory or on fact, before any court, that particular court would have to decide whether or not it was a valid defence—

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The hon. and learned Member has mentioned that there can be amending legislation if the opinion of the Judicial Committee is, so to speak, adverse. Would he agree that, pending that amending legislation, there


will have been a reduction or restriction suffered by Members of this House in what it believes its privileges to be, and that that reduction of privilege, albeit temporarily, will be determined by an outside body. Is that fact agreeable to him?

Mr. Doughty: It is not a question of reduction of privilege at all. The word "privilege" will not come into it. It is simply a question of the correct interpretation of the 1770 Act. That is the only question. If, in the interim, an hon. Member has an action brought against him we can, in this House, pass an Act of Indemnity, as, indeed, we do when Members sit who are found to be disqualified. As to the reference to the Judicial Committee, may I remind hon. Members that only a few months ago we passed the House of Commons Disqualification Act which gave any third party the power to bring hon. Members before the Judicial Committee to decide whether they were, in fact, properly elected, according to law, as Members of this House.
The House has always been jealous of its composition and of its privileges, and if it passed that Act without any discussion—or certainly without any opposition—I can see no reason why it should not merely ask the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—it is no more than that—as to whether or not the 1770 Act applies to the provisions of the Bill of Rights—

Mr. Ede: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the House of Commons Disqualification Act was in substitution of the old position whereby a common informer could bring a case before the courts against someone whom he thought not to be a Member, with the possibility of the Member being fined £500 for each proceeding in Parliament in which he had participated, of which sum, I believe, the common informer got half?

Mr. Doughty: No, it was in substitution for the action for damages brought by the common informer simply to get money. As the common informer cannot now get money, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well—we sat on the Committee together—no question of such penalties now arises and the common informer has drawn his last breath. The action

was taken to see whether or not the Member was properly elected, and the Judicial Committee was the body chosen as most suitable to decide what amounts to a constitutional question, if it was only a question of fact it would be referred by the Judicial Committee to the appropriate High Court for decision.
That is all we are asking here, and Parliament is not derogating in any way from its rights or privileges. We are only to have an opinion for our assistance, that is all, although I am sure that all hon. Members, when they receive that advice, will treat it with the respect due to a body of such legal eminence. But it goes no further than that at all.
This is only a preliminary run. When we come to the real debate, or the lengthy debate, when our privileges are discussed and, who knows, voted upon, in this House we shall have had the assistance of what must be the most eminent judicial opinion in this country in deciding what our future course of action should be, whereas now we are somewhat vague about what our future course of action should be.
Let us guard our privileges jealously, but do not let us try to extend them—certainly not by giving to words a meaning which they do not have. We shall not increase the respect which is our due outside the House if we attempt to do that. Let us, at any rate, pass this Motion so that we may have the advantage of opinion upon this not easy point of law, and so that we may decide upon our next course and what we shall do after we have had that opinion.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am not going to say anything about the two first conclusions reported in what is really the interim Report of the Committee of Privileges. The question that is sought to be put to the Judicial Committee is a perfectly general one. It does not, as I see it, relate only to the particular case in which the question arose; it does concern the future of the House and of its Members. I suggest that it would be right to recommend that the advice of the Judicial Committee should be sought.
There are three things that I should like to make quite clear. First, I entirely agree that this is a House of Commons matter. It is a matter for individual


opinion and judgment, and I personally respect the views of those who differ from me, while, at the same time, hoping that they will accept that my views are, at any rate, sincere.
Secondly, I entirely agree that the House is right to be jealous of its own privilege and powers in dealing with privilege.
Thirdly, I think that deep in the minds of many of us is a very simple consideration, namely—without going into this particular case—that nowadays the business of Parliament is different from what it was in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. We had a report from a Committee of Privileges not so long ago about pestering an hon. Friend of mine by means of a telephone, and there was not such a thing in those days. What we have to seek to do is to apply the principles of freedom of speech to different circumstances and to business which has perhaps not fundamentally differed, but certainly differed in its forms.
Having said that, I suggest that it is both proper and advisable that this question should be put to the Judicial Committee. I start with the matter of propriety. It is perfectly true that a question in this sort of form—that is to say, a question arising in the Committee of Privileges as to the effect of a Statute—has not been put to the Judicial Committee before, but we have been very near it.
In the MacManaway case there was a Select Committee of this House which reported with some suggestions, at any rate, about future legislation. We on this side of the House were in power at the time. We recommended that the question of the interpretation of certain statutes affecting the position of Mr. MacManaway, who was named in the Resolution, should be referred to the Judicial Committee. When the matter got there, the case was put on the one side by the then Attorney-General and on the other side by a distinguished silk who was not a Member of this House and who led Mr. Geoffrey Bing and another member of the Bar. There were two sides; they were both argued, and a decision was reached.
It may be said that that is not strictly a question of privilege, but it is getting very close to it. Indeed, I noticed that before the actual debate was held, my zealous friend Mr. Bing desired to move

a Motion for which he claimed precedence as a matter of privilege, and your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, said:
The Report of this Committee"—
that is, the Committee inquiring into the MacManaway case—
though not a Report from the Committee of Privileges, is so closely akin in subject matter that my Ruling…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 224.]
made in a privilege case should be applied to it. If one looks at the substance of the matter, one sees that there really is a very close relation between what was done in the MacManaway case and what is proposed to be done here.
Next, still on the question of propriety, there can be no doubt that immediately before the Act of 1770, Members of the House were entitled to certain privileges in respect of not being sued, and in respect, curiously enough, of their servants not being sued, which at that time was regarded as part of the privileges of the House. Those privileges were dealt with—I use a quite neutral word—by the Act of 1770. That, of course, was an Act of Parliament. It was a concurrence of the three necessary estates of the Realm that produced legislation, and it over-rode, with the consent of the House of Commons of the day, certain minor privileges—for instance, without doubt, those in relation to servants which had previously been part of the privileges of Parliament.
It seems clear from that and from the legislation which preceded it and which arose under historical conditions of which we have heard today, that there was a deliberate abandonment by the House of Commons of certain personal privileges which it had had before.
The question we now have to consider is this. We had in the Committee of Privileges, and there appear in the Report, two conflicting opinions. The first conflicting opinion was that of the very distinguished Committee composed of eminent lawyers of this House who said, in effect, that not only the 1770 Act, with which we are concerned today, but the three Acts which preceded it, dealt solely with personal matters.
The second opinion, as appears from the Report given to us by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General of the day, with all the weight that one must attach to anyone's opinion


when he holds that office, was to the direct opposite. I not prepared to say either that the very distinguished Committee of a good many years ago was wrong, or that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong. All I say is, one or other of them must be wrong, but I do not see that we are called upon to estimate the probability of the right hon. and learned Gentleman being wrong as against a Committee whose members none of us have ever seen in the flesh.
I shrink from so invidious a task and from a task which I do not think we ought to be called upon to undertake in this House. If it is the case that the 1770 Act bears the comprehensive character that the right hon. and learned Gentleman attributes to it, I would say, without prejudging the matter, that quite obviously we shall have, in the terms of this Motion, to give the most serious consideration to what action we take upon it. The sort of action we should take upon it is obvious to anybody. I do not want to go any further into it and I do not invite any member of the Government Front Bench to concur in that at this stage. Quite frankly, there seems to be an obvious remedy.
That is one side of it. I noticed that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), after having three times stated that the House was the supreme court in this matter—a statement which seems to me to be metaphorical rather than accurate—ended by saying that we ought to take any advice or any assistance we can get. Why should we be invited to ask learned judges to leave their courts and to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges, or do some other strange thing, when there exists the machinery for obtaining a legal opinion of the very highest character?
I say with diffidence, because I have not been in the House as long as some Members, and they probably know more about it than I, that it seems to me that there must be a limit to what we can say. In regard to our own internal proceedings, the way in which we conduct our business, this House has established its right to be the complete and supreme judge. That is reasonable enough. When we come to issuing writs or suing for penalties about oaths and affirmations—I have in mind the case of a

former hon. Member for Northampton, Mr. Bradlaugh—we then have a third person interfering, the person who desires to issue the writ or who, in the old days, desired to collect the cash as a common informer. It is when we get to the rights of the third party that we have to consider whether the House is, indeed, the supreme judge.
It is in relation to those rights that I thought it was by now established that the court could, for its own proper purposes and in the interests of ordinary citizens, look at the privileges of Parliament and see how far they extend. That, I think, is the rough distinction, so far as it is relevant for these purposes, which I find drawn in page 173 of the last edition of Erskine May.
Now let me deal with advisability. This will affect not only the particular case that the Committee has to deal with; it will affect all of us in the future. If the view of the Attorney-General is correct, and the Act of 1770 remains in force without amendment, qualification or repeal, the position appears to be—and this is the question asked, as I understand it—that a writ can be issued against a Member of Parliament in respect of something derogatory to a private person said within this Chamber. It is true that once the writ is issued the Member in question would have considerable rights at an early stage.
The practical point that occurs to me is this. Ought we to leave it, even at the early stage, to be dealt with by a private Member at his own risk, such as the risk is, and at his own expense? For a practical reason it is very much better to take this opportunity of getting that question settled.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I hope that my, hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting. He has referred to the question of having the matter settled. I thought he was agreeing with the Lord Privy Seal that whatever the Judicial Committee may recommend we are not obliged to accept its advice.

Mr. Mitchison: I agree with that, but I want the advice in order to have the matter settled. What has been asked for by the Lord Privy Seal, and by this Motion, is that we should obtain the advice of the Privy Council, and, having


obtained it, consider what action we should take. I thought I had made it clear. I certainly wish to make it clear. I am not suggesting that that is the end of the matter.
In the last Report of the Committee of Privileges the Committee asked for the matter to be sent back, and I was glad to hear from the Leader of the House that even before that stage is reached we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter. There can be no question of submitting to the Judicial Committee any questions for decision; it is simply a matter of asking for advice.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is drawing a distinction between advice and decision by the Judicial Committee. I think that it is an all-important distinction. Does he agree that, if the advice given by the Judicial Committee is adverse, it takes effect as a decision because until there is amending legislation Members of Parliament cannot extend their own privileges? Is it not therefore the position that advice given by the Judicial Committee in a certain direction has the effect of being a decision which makes amending legislation necessary?

Mr. Mitchison: I do not wish to face those hurdles until I come to them. I do not think that they arise today and I hope I have made it clear why. What we are asking for is advice and our intention is to take action on that advice. How it can be said that advice in those circumstances and for those purposes is any more than an authoritative interpretation of an Act of Parliament which has caused eminent lawyers to differ about its meaning, I fail to understand.

Mr. Pickthorn: What the Privy Council always gives to Her Majesty is advice. It is decisive in many important cases. Is it meant to be decisive in this case and is it meant to be given as if it were advice without any minority and without reasons?

Mr. Mitchison: Advice is advice even when given by the Judicial Council. The difference that the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) overlooks is that it advises in an ordinary case that the appeal be either allowed or dismissed. The following of that advice results, in effect, in

a definite decision. This is advice for consideration. I should like to remind the hon. Member for Carlton, as I have already reminded the House, that this type of advice—I do not say that it is exactly analogous—was what the House asked for in the MacManaway case, advice on the interpretation of Statute.
There seems to be only one possible answer to the suggestion that this is the best way of protecting hon. Members in the future from actions which, though ill-founded, may none the less be troublesome to them. The answer may be in the mouths of some hon. Gentlemen—I have not heard it yet—that, if such things happen, the House itself will know how to protect its Members. Of course, there is, at least in the troubled days of the seventeenth century, some precedent for protection of that kind. Indeed, some of the Acts with which we are concerned amounted to a waiver of a kind of protection which was not so very different. But I earnestly hope that we shall not rely on that.
An hon. Member would still be put in a difficult position in such circumstances. The House would be put in what I believe would, in those circumstances, be a very difficult position indeed. Worst of all, as I see it, there would be what would amount to an invitation for a clash between the courts and the House, which is still theoretically possible in these matters, and which has been avoided successfully for many decades. Because I want to avoid that kind of thing, I am very anxious indeed that we should put ourselves right on the law as to what we are doing. I am not content to accept an interpretation which simply depends upon saying that one or other of the eminent lawyers who have given advice in this matter is wrong.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I must confess that I have found the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) more attractive in support of the Motion than any previously advanced. Nevertheless, I still do not accept that this is a Motion which should be passed by the House. I believe that it would be unwise to depart from the Resolution of 30th May, 1837, which is quoted in the Fifth Report and which states:
That by the law and privilege of Parliament, the House has the sole and exclusive


jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges".
This Motion on the Order Paper does not appear to me to have any useful effect. If we refer this matter to the Judicial Committee and the Judicial Committee gives us its advice, that advice will either be acceptable or not acceptable to the House. If it is acceptable, a very great deal of time will have been wasted. The time of the Judicial Committee will have been wasted, and the only persons to derive any advantage will be the gentlemen briefed to appear before it. On the other hand, if the advice is not acceptable to the House, the House will seize the opportunity—which I hoped it might seize even before then—to put its own house in order, if I may use that phrase, with regard to its privileges.
I am not uncritical of the Report. I should like to say also—I hope it will not be considered impertinent, having regard to the short time during which I have been a Member—that I have been completely flabbergasted by some of the matters of privilege which have been raised. I have sat in silent wonder that the House has permitted what one can but describe I think one of my hon. Friends has so described it as a pantomime, when, for instance, an occasion when a critical and, perhaps, inaccurate editor is brought to the Bar of the House on account of some words written in a column in a newspaper. I believe that these things do the prestige of Parliament untold harm, particularly among the younger generation.
The dangers we face in regard to privilege in 1957 are clearly very different from those which existed in 1689. We are now not concerned about someone coming along to chop off our heads. We fear the issue of writs. Nowadays, therefore, the problem facing us is entirely separate and different. In my view, the right to enjoy absolute privilege should depend upon the openness of the proceedings. In the courts, where there is absolute privilege, that principle originally developed, in my view, because of, among other things, the publicity which is given to the advocate's comments and remarks, quite apart from his professional position and training. Of course, although an advocate has the same amount of privilege as a Member of Parliament, he has been advised by a great advocate to

use his arms as a warrior and not as an assassin.
The same thing is surely true in Parliament. The fact that we have publicity and something is said openly in the House, with the pressure of the opinion of Members of the House and the pressure of public opinion, prevents abuse. There is also the tradition of withdrawal and apology which helps to ensure that people do not, in the House, make wild and outrageous comments and slanders upon people outside. In private letters, however, it appears to me that there is not the same sanction or restraint which otherwise is exerted by Parliamentary or public opinion. The words in such letters are private and secret, not affected by those influences.
It is my view, therefore, on the main issue here, that if a letter is sent not on behalf of a constituent and if it imputes irregularity or dishonesty, if it discloses, as it may, a personal interest, that letter should not be granted the absolute privilege of Parliament. What is said in such a letter is very different from what is said in frank and open allegation made in the House. Members of Parliament have their duties to their constituents, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) very forcefully said, and if they have to make comments of a defamatory nature, here is the place, here in debate or Question is the time, to say them, publicly on the Floor of the House so that what is said can be apprehended by Members of the House and reported in the Press.
Mr. Justice O'Connor, whose words in the case of R. v. Bunting are quoted the Fifth Report, held that Privilege attached in respect of anything a Member
may say or do within the scope of his duties in the course of parliamentary business".
Surely, one can distinguish between a private letter of accusation and debate, and also perhaps one may be able further to distinguish between letters of accusation and a letter which is merely forwarded by a Member of Parliament to the Minister without the Member's private comment.
I had hoped that at this particular time we might have taken the opportunity to set our own house in order with regard to Parliamentary privilege. There is. I think, a decline in the prestige of


Parliament, and that is not a little whit due to some of the conduct we have exhibited in our sensitiveness and touchiness in reacting to proper comment about our activities.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Having listened to four consecutive speeches from lawyers, the House will perhaps find a little relief in listening for a few moments to a layman. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) said that this was a matter on which lawyers disagreed and, therefore, the decision would have to be taken by the laymen. Fortunately, there are more laymen in the House than lawyers, and I hope that the laymen, together with the right-minded lawyers, will reject the Motion now before us.
I am not a lawyer and I can speak only as one who has made some study of the customs and privileges of the House and of the rights and privileges of its Members. I think I speak for all Members when I say that we are jealous of the privileges of this House, not because we are a race apart or above the law, but because without the protection which they give, we should not be able to carry out our functions effectively.
It seemed to me that the cross-examination of the Attorney-General and the speeches of the former Attorney-General, the right hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) make sense only if they were trying to put such a limit on the interpretation of the privileges of Parliament as would make our task dangerous and almost impossible.
In his proposed draft report, which the Committee of Privileges—in my opinion, rightly—rejected, the Attorney-General asked the Committee to agree that the letter and memorandum which my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) sent to the Paymaster-General on 8th February did not form any part of any proceeding in Parliament within the meaning of the Article of the Bill of Rights. Such an interpretation of the position would, I think, make nonsense of our present proceedings in the changed circumstances of 1957.
If my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall had sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment, the question would never have arisen—

Mr. S. Silverman: Yes, it would.

Mr. Blackburn: —for even the Attorney-General would, I think, have recognised that as a proceeding in Parliament. Quite rightly, the Committee rejected the Attorney-General's contention.
Any student of Parliament must look to Erskine May for guidance. Perhaps I might be allowed to give a word of congratulation to the Clerk of the House and those who helped him in the production of the Sixteenth Edition. One of the strange things about Erskine May is that it is out of date before it is published. Certain changes have already taken place, an example of which is Mr. Speaker's Ruling yesterday on the changed procedure concerning debates on the motion to continue the Army Act. Certain fundamentals, however, remain in Erskine May. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, do not underestimate the great value of Erskine May in helping you to solve the many knotty problems which come up for your consideration.
If the Attorney-General is right in his contention and if the Motion before us today is necessary, a good deal of Erskine May needs to be rewritten. Perhaps the Attorney-General is engaged upon his own edition. Let me give three short quotations. As I read them, I should like the House to keep in mind that the Committee of Privileges decided, first, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall
was engaged in a 'proceeding in Parliament'
and secondly, that the London Electricity Board and its solicitors, in threatening to commence proceedings,
have acted in breach of the Privilege of Parliament".
I should like the House to keep those two points in mind as I read these three quotations, which need to be considered together, from the Sixteenth Edition of Erskine May.
The first quotation is from page 28:
The constitution has assigned no limits to the authority of Parliament over all matters and persons within its jurisdiction.


The second is from page 109:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
The third quotation is from page 127:
To commence proceedings in a court of law against any person for his conduct in obedience to the orders of either House or in conformity with its practice, or to be concerned in commencing or conducting such proceedings, is a breach of privilege.
Are those quotations right or wrong? If they are right, I submit that the recommendation of the Committee is totally unnecessary and raises a problem which has never existed. Although I have great respect for the ability of the members of the Committee of Privileges, I find their action quite inexplicable.
Let me call the attention of the House again to the first two conclusions in paragraph 20 on page viii of the Committee's Fifth Report:
Our conclusion therefore is:—

(a) In writing the letter of 8th February, 1957, to the Postmaster General of which the London Electricity Board complain, Mr. Strauss was engaged in a 'proceeding in Parliament' within the meaning of the Bill of Rights of 1668.
(b) The London Electricity Board in threatening by the letters from themselves and their Solicitors to commence proceedings foe libel against Mr. Strauss for statements made by him in the course of a proceeding in Parliament are threatening to impeach or question, the freedom of Mr. Strauss in a Court or Place outside Parliament, and accordingly the London Electricity Board and their Solicitors have acted in breach of the Privilege of Parliament."

That is to say that the Select Committee, having decided that the threat to issue a writ was a breach of privilege, then inserted paragraph (c) to ask the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council whether the issuing of the writ was a breach of privilege. Therefore, I cannot understand the action which the Committee has taken. Having thoroughly investigated the case and having studied all the relevant Acts and precedents, the Committee then lamely says, "We had better ask if we are right."
Why has the Committee done this? The kindest interpretation I can put upon its action is appeasement of the Attorney-General. Two draft reports were sub-

mitted for the consideration of the Committee, one by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and one by the Attorney-General. Having taken the report of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery as the basis of its Report, the Committee of Privileges then tacked on the substance of the last paragraph of the Attorney-General's draft report, which. I maintain, makes nonsense of the Committee's previous decision.
I should now like to turn to the Bill of Rights and to the Act of 1770. As has been said, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 stated:
The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.
Hon. Members who have read the Report will realise that in his examination of the Clerk of the House the Attorney-General sought to prove that the issuing of a writ was not impeachment. To me as a layman that does not seem to matter. Surely, the point is covered by the word "questioned". The whole purpose of the writ is that the Member shall be questioned in court.
Then, said the Attorney-General, the Bill of Rights must be read in conjunction with the Act of 1770. I should like to call the attention of the House to the way in which the Attorney-General combines them. As is reported at page 6 of the Fifth Report, the Attorney-General said:
The two Acts have to be read together, have they not, and is not the result that Parliament sand, by the Act of 1770, 'You may commence any action against a Member of Parliament, but if in that action you seek to impeach or question freedom of speech and debates in Parliament, the Bill of Rights prevents the Court from hearing the case!
That is the way the Attorney-General says that the two have to be read together. It seems to me to create a very foolish position. I cannot see that it very much strengthens the subsequent argument of the Attorney-General. The Act of 1770 makes no mention of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not repealed. I think the Attorney-General will agree that is so. There were, I think, four Acts in the eighteenth century after the Bill of Rights, and not one of them, I think I am right in saying, even referred to the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the Bill of Rights still stands.
I am no lawyer, and perhaps it is because I am no lawyer that to me the purpose of the Act of 1770 is quite clear. It was to put an end to claims to Privilege made by Members for themselves, for their families and for their servants in matters outside proceedings in Parliament. The reference in the Preamble to the Act of 1770 to "Causes Matrimonial and Testamentary" gives an indication that the Act is not concerned with the same sort of privileges referred to in the Bill of Rights. Neither at that time nor at this has the House included a matrimonial agency among its varied activities.
I am fortified in my view by the opinion of the Clerk of the House, whom we all recognise as an expert in the practices of the House. I would call attention to paragraphs 1 and 2 of his memorandum, which hon. Members will find at the beginning of the Minutes of Evidence in the Report of the Select Committee. I shall not delay the House by reading them but I would call the attention of hon. Members to those words.
I am further fortified, of course, by the views of the Committee of the House of 1810 and the Resolution passed by the House in 1837. The Committee of 1810, referring to the four Acts I have said there were in the eighteenth century, said that those Acts
merely apply to proceedings against Members in respect of their debts and actions as individuals and not in respect of their conduct as Members of Parliament; and therefore they do not in any way abridge the ancient law and privilege of Parliament so far as they respect the freedom and conduct of Members of Parliament as such or the protection which the House may give to persons acting under its authority.
The argument is that that recommendation was not put before the House and, therefore, has not been passed by the House, but in 1837 the House did pass this Resolution:
That by the law and privilege of Parliament, this House has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges and that the institution or prosecution of any action, suit or other proceeding, for the purpose of bringing them into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than in Parliament, is a high breach of such privilege and renders all parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to the punishment consequent thereon.
Which interpretation of the Act of 1770 shall we accept, the one of 1810, the one

of 1837, or the one by the Attorney-General in 1957? Until now the interpretations of 1810 and of 1837 have never been questioned. I doubt whether many question them now, and I hope that the Members of this House will seek to uphold the necessary privileges of this House and will reject this Motion, which is inconsistent with the other conclusions of the Select Committee, and which seeks to cast doubt where none exists.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I do not wish to detain the House very long, nor do I wish to say very much on the question with which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) concerned himself, the question whether or not the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was or was not a proceeding in Parliament. One thing, however, I feel bound to say, that the argument which the hon. Member and others have used, that a proceeding out of Parliament becomes a proceeding in Parliament simply because an hon. Member could have started the proceeding in Parliament, seems to me to be manifest nonsense.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), for example, said it was essential that what he called a conduit between constituents and Ministers should be kept free and clear and that there should be no question of privilege intervening. How far back are we to take this? If a letter written outside Parliament to a Minister in a Government Department is a proceeding in Parliament, why may not other things be so, too?
Suppose one of my constituents, at a public meeting, says, "This thing that the Minister has done is a scandal. Will you do something about it, or get him to do something about it?" and I say, "Yes, I agree, it is a scandal, and I will get the Minister to do something about it" is that privileged? It seems to me that there is no reason whatsoever why that should not be privileged if this transaction is privileged. I notice that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has just taken advice from his solicitor and perhaps wishes to intervene?

Mr. Paget: The simple answer is that if the hon. Member's constituent says


that to him in private then it is privileged, but if he says it in front of a hundred other people at a meeting, who are not concerned, it is not privileged. It is outside of what I described as a proceeding in Parliament.

Mr. Maude: But the purpose of having a public meeting is, presumably, for my constituents to bring their troubles to me and to say what they think is wrong with the Commonwealth or with the behaviour of the Government. I am saying only that it is at least open to question whether, if something which manifestly did not take place in Parliament is to be construed as being a proceeding in Parliament simply because an hon. Member could have raised the question here on the Adjournment, quite a number of other communications may be taken as proceedings in Parliament, and, therefore, as privileged.
One must be very careful of assuming that this House can extend the definition of its own proceedings, because it may be that a number of other very odd things could be construed as proceedings in Parliament once this precedent is granted.
I come to the question whether the interpretation of Section 1 of the Act of 1770 should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It seems to me that there is everything to be gained from so referring it and nothing to be lost. I really found it extraordinarily difficult to listen to what I may call the almost antediluvian observations of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). To listen to him, one would have thought that he was a Roundhead in the Parliament of 1635. The situation is really fundamentally different. He seems to me to be living in a completely different age.
The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Epson) (Mr. Rawlinson) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde quoted the Resolution of the House of 30th May, 1837. The Resolution of the House of 1837 scarcely makes sense at all in the context of history. It starts by saying
That by the law and privilege of Parliament, this House has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges"—
It is utter nonsense, because the House had taken part in the passing of the Act

of 1770, which did restrict the determination of its privileges.
It is all very well to quote the 1810 Report of the Committee, which says that the 1770 Act and its three predecessors merely applied to proceedings against hon. Members in respect of their debts and actions as individuals. That may well be true. But the plain fact is that it has restricted the privileges of Parliament solely to those proceedings in which hon. Members were involved as Members of Parliament and not as private individuals.
But the House had shown in 1770 that it had not the sole and exclusive jurisdiction. The moment another place becomes involved, as it does, in the passing of a Statute, the House shows clearly in this respect that it has not the sole and exclusive jurisdiction. I consider that the second part of the Resolution of 1837 is of extremely doubtful relevance to the present case, because what it deals with is
…the institution or prosecution of any action, suit or other proceeding, for the purpose of bringing them"—
that is to say, the privileges of Parliament—
into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than in Parliament…
The sort of proceedings that we have been discussing and which our Committee of Privileges has been discussing were not proceedings entered into for the purposes of determining or discussing the privileges of Parliament. They were proceedings for the purpose of determining whether certain letters were or were not libellous, which is not the same thing at all.
I cannot see, therefore, that the 1837 Resolution is a reasonable precedent to follow in this case at all because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in his draft Report:
…while the House has, of course, power to punish those who act in breach of its privileges, it has no power to terminate legal proceedings: even if, therefore, they are instituted in breach of the privileges of Parliament, legal proceedings can be terminated only by the courts or, of course, by the parties to the litigation themselves.
We ought to know, therefore, and ought to be told authoritatively by whoever winds up the debate, what would happen


supposing that we do not remit this question for decision to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and proceedings were instituted in this present case.
Would the proceedings go forward? Would the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) have to enter an appearance in court and there claim the privilege of Parliament, or would Parliament take steps to see that the proceedings were stopped? It seems to me that Parliament could not terminate those legal proceedings.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that my hon. Friend means that "this House" cannot terminate the proceedings.

Mr. Maude: Yes, that is so. I mean "this House". I consider that it would be very unfortunate if it became accepted that it could.
Without going into the merits of either this case or any hypothetical case, it seems to me that once this House were to set out upon a course deliberately designed to convert qualified privilege, as it has always been understood, into absolute privilege in every set of circumstances, we should be embarked upon a very dangerous course indeed. I hope sincerely that we shall not do that. In the meantime, it seems to me that there is nothing whatever derogatory to the privileges or interests of the House in deciding that this question ought to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I hope that we shall not only have more information this evening in explanation of the questions which I have raised about the particular proceedings, but that the House will let the reference be made.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: To some extent the debate has been obscured by the fact that hon. Members have been considering two separate questions. The first is the question whether privilege should have been extended, if it has been extended, from what takes place actually in the Chamber to a communication such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) to a Minister about the London Electricity Board. I can quite understand that there have been

legitimate differences of opinion as to whether there should be such an extension or not, but that is a matter with which the Committee of Privileges has dealt.
For myself, I would agree with the sentence in the memorandum by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) who pointed out, as I think rightly, that it is the duty of the House to maintain its privileges, not only for the benefit of this House but of future Houses in circumstances which we cannot foresee. The hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) said that it would be unfortunate if we were to claim the right to extend our privileges in that way. I agree with the decision of the Committee of Privileges, by a majority of eight to one, the Attorney-General being the one dissentient, when it decided that the letter written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall was, for the purpose of the Bill of Rights, a proceeding in Parliament.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Ealing, South and to some other hon. Members, I wondered what would have happened if the case of Privilege which my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall had raised, instead of having been a letter written to the Paymaster-General, had been a speech made in this Chamber saying exactly what he said in his letter. Let us suppose that he had made that speech and that it had been referred to the Committee of Privileges. I wonder whether we should then have had a Report from that Committee saying that the question whether that speech was a breach of Privilege was not something which we should decide but was something which ought to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. R. Bell: Surely that is not the issue which it is proposed should be referred to the Judicial Committee. The issue is the meaning of the 1770 Act, as compared with the Bill of Rights. The matter which the hon. Member mentions is more a question of procedure than of privilege.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member cannot have followed my argument. I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that the question whether this can be referred to the Judicial Committee of the


Privy Council covers the letter which my right hon. Friend wrote and covers the identical case of the speech which he could have made saying, in terms, in the House what he said in that letter.
As I understand it, whatever the advice of the Judicial Committee may be as to the effect of the 1770 Act, that advice will have precisely the same application whether it is in respect of a letter written to a Minister about a nationalised industry or whether it is in respect of a speech made in the House. The advice will be precisely the same.

Mr. Maude: It seems to me that it would not be quite the same for the reason that, so far as I know, there has never been any serious questioning of the fact that what takes place in this Chamber in the course of a speech, is, in fact, covered by absolute privilege. But it has always been open to question whether a letter was covered by qualified or absolute Privilege.

Mr. Fletcher: Again I think that the hon. Member is wrong, and that it is important that this matter should be cleared up.
As I understand it—I hope the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—if, instead of having written a letter to the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall had made a speech in this House in identical terms, and the Board had thereupon threatened to issue a writ against him in respect of that speech, we should be asking the Judicial Committee—if this Motion is carried—whether or not the Act of 1770 abrogates the Bill of Rights to such an extent—

Mr. S. Silverman: Look at line 5 of the Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Fletcher: —as to produce the result that the issue of a writ in respect of a speech made in this House is or is not a breach of Privilege.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Member has appealed to me and I should like to take the guidance of the House about intervening now. We have a great deal of other business on procedure, some of which affects Scottish Members, and I have to think of the interests of other hon. Members. Would the House like me to reply to the hon. Member after other hon. Members have intervened?

If so, I will speak later. I think that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak and if we could come to an early decision, I will answer the hon. Gentleman later when other hon. Members have spoken.

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to the Home Secretary, but I think it important to clear up whether what the Judicial Committee will be asked to advise will govern speeches in the House, and the possibility of writs being issued against hon. Members in respect of speeches made in this House, as well as letters written to Ministers.
I do not propose to enlarge further on the question whether Parliamentary privilege as we have hitherto understood it should properly be extended as the Committee of Privileges recommends. I think it should. The sole question with which we are concerned now is whether a relatively minor point—because the other matter is a major issue on which the Committee of Privileges should be questioned—should be decided by the House or referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I regard it as unnecessary, undesirable and even embarrassing for us to refer it to the Judicial Committee for this reason. We have not yet had a clear expression of opinion from the Home Secretary about what would be the effect on this House of the opinion of the Judicial Committee.
Technically, it will not be a decision; it will be an opinion given to Her Majesty. Presumably, it will be in the form of a unanimous opinion. I would remind the House that, traditionally, the Judicial Committee gives only one opinion even though there may be a difference of opinion among its members. Therefore, it would be very regrettable were this matter referred to the Judicial Committee consisting of, say, five eminent lawyers who were divided among themselves—perhaps in the proportion of three to two—and if, because of tradition, the Committee gave only one opinion to Her Majesty. This House would not know that there was that close division of opinion among the members.
Even suppose the Judicial Committee was unanimous, I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us what in his opinion will be the effect when the opinion of the Judicial Committee is communicated


to the House. Are we to be bound by it or not? If not, I cannot see any good purpose is served in obtaining it. If we are not to be bound by it, I should have thought it embarrassing for us to have to reject it. If we agree, of course no question arises. But we may find ourselves wishing to disagree with it. We are entitled to do so, because the Judicial Committee is not infallible. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) so wisely pointed out, the reason that we object to this Motion is that to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee in those circumstances would be to take a step for which there is no precedent.
No question touching Privilege has ever previously been referred to the Judicial Committee. I do not regard the MacManaway case as in any way comparable. May I remind the House that not only was that case a question of disqualification in respect of which this House has never claimed jurisdiction, but it was a specific case based on specific facts. Today we have a general question of law which it has hitherto been assumed will be of universal application, although hypothetically it still remains open to other bodies to interpret whether it applies to a particular case or not. The Judicial Committee is not being asked to express an opinion on my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall. It is being asked to express an opinion which may or may not cover his case.
I object to this procedure for the reasons so eloquently stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) which are reinforced by the valuable memorandum supplied by the Clerk to the House to the Committee of Privileges and printed on page 2 of its Report. It has not as yet been read and so I will quote the following relevant extract:
I should be failing in my duty to the House and to this Committee if I did not point out that the Resolution of 1837 not only represents the historic attitude of the House of Commons to the interpretation of the law of Privilege, but that it still stands uncontradicted for 120 years as the latest expression of the House's view of its rights in the matter of privilege. Expressly to abandon such rights would be to strike an unprecedented blow against the privilege of freedom of speech which has been described as essential to every free Council or Legislature.
I omit an unnecessary sentence.

It seems to me, therefore, that it would be quite in accord with parliamentary precedent that the House should lay down what it considers a reasonable interpretation of its privilege…
I wish to quote one sentence from the evidence given by the Clerk of the House which is on page 20 of the Report and is Question 187. The Clerk of the House, an independent witness, was being questioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, and was dealing with the Act of 1770 passed 187 years ago. He was asked:
Until the meeting of this Committee, has the interpretation which the Attorney-General seeks to put upon it ever, within your knowledge, from your studies, been advanced before?
The answer was
Not within my knowledge.
I think it fair to say that not within the knowledge of anybody has the argument been advanced before. Therefore, I think it relevant that the Home Secretary should bear this in mind. Even if there should be some abstract question, which I dispute, of whether the Act of 1770 should be interpreted literally as modifying the Bill of Rights—personally I do not think it should for the reasons given to the Committee and elsewhere—it is still a recognised doctrine of law that if a particular practice has been followed even for fifty years—in this case it is 187 years—no court ever disturbs it.
It has been the accepted, unchallenged doctrine, as part of the law of the land, for 187 years that if a Member of Parliament makes a speech in this House nobody can issue a writ against him. Yet today, on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, the Home Secretary—the right hon. Gentleman put the matter very fairly—is suggesting that we should now ask the Privy Council to express an opinion on the question—and it is not the final question, because there are really two questions in one.
One relevant argument if the second question were argued in any case which was being dealt with inter partes, where the rights of individuals were affected—those who have practised in the courts will agree with me—would be that, whatever construction may have been put on an Act of Parliament at the time it was passed or soon after, if a particular construction has been put upon it for 187 years and accepted without criticism and


without controversy as being the correct interpretation, then that interpretation is never challenged.
Therefore, on the minor and technical point as to whether the questions which are being put to the Privy Council are adequately framed or framed with sufficient particularity to give the House the guidance it wants, I take the view that this Motion does not cover the point. But I do not rest on that. I adduce that argument in support of the general proposition put by other hon. Members who have spoken against this Motion, in that I think the House would be derogating from its duty as the final interpreter of its privileges if it failed to express its opinion on paragraph 3 of the Report of the Committee of Privileges in precisely the same way as it has courageously expressed its opinion on the far more important matters raised in the Report. For those reasons, I hope the Motion will be rejected.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: At this stage of the evening I do not want, if at all possible, to go over any of the ground which has already been covered by previous speakers. I rise only because it becomes apparent to me, on studying the Motion, that it raises two important matters. As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), it raises the question of privilege in relation to a speech in the House of Commons. I confess I am a very junior Member of the House, but I should not have thought that the question of privilege relating to a speech made in this Chamber had ever been in question. From the study of text books and from information obtained in this House, I had always been under the firm impression that there was a complete and utter privilege, necessary for the conduct of Parliamentary affairs, for a speech made in the House of Commons.
The other question raised by the terms of the Motion is whether or not a proceeding by an hon. Member in Parliament can amount to a breach of privilege. Surely the terms of the Motion are entirely erroneous in meeting the point of this case. As I understand it, the sole point of this case is whether or not a letter received by a Member of Parliament from a constituent making a complaint in respect of a nationalised board is a letter which that hon. Member can

pass on, covered by privilege, to the Minister in charge of the Government Department.
We are not considering the problem of the constituent. We are considering simply and solely the privilege of the Member of Parliament who, in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, receives a letter from a constituent Frankly, if I am to be told by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or by he House of Commons itself, that if in future I pass on a letter from a constituent I shall subject myself to civil proceedings, I shall take great care that I return the letter to my constituent instead of sending it on to the responsible Minister. That is a burden which it would be quite wrong to impose on a Member of Parliament, and it is a burden against which I propose to vote if I have the opportunity.
It is perhaps fitting that an Ulster Member of Parliament should speak on this Motion. It is a happy fact that King William and Queen Mary, of glorious, pious and immortal memory, were the Sovereigns who gave this ancient right to this ancient House of Parliament. I intend to do all I can to preserve what King William and Queen Mary so nobly gave our country.
I want the House for a moment to consider the alternative. If letters sent to us by constituents are not to be privileged when we pass them on to the responsible Minister, what are we to do? Are we to put Questions on the Order Paper? If we table Questions, how many hours will be allowed in future for answering Questions? One hour certainly will not go very far in answering Questions about nationalised boards. What is the alternative if Question Time is not to be extended? Are the nationalised industries to be brought into the House of Commons in such a way that a Minister will be able to answer Questions about their individual, detailed workings?
I submit that the Committee has found the facts. How is any tribunal, even the highest judicial authority in the land, to get behind the findings of fact which have been found expressly in the Report? If the findings of fact be impregnable—ere in the country to say that a finding of fact by the House of Commons is not impregnable?—how is anybody to advise the House of Commons, the highest tribunal in the country,


that it has been erroneous in its majority decision about the law which is applicable to those facts?

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: If I intervene in the debate after so many hours, I can assure the House to begin with that I do not do so for the purpose of covering all the ground that has been covered. I would deal only with the practical aspect of the Motion.
I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House even now to withdraw the Motion he moved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do so with the more confidence, if that is the right word to use, than I would have in inviting the Government to do a thing of that kind if this were a party issue or if the right hon. Gentleman had expressed any strong views of his own. I think that the House was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he presented the Motion. He most fairly and lucidly gave both sides of the legal argument, and although he did recommend, as I suppose it was his duty to do as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges of whose Report the whole debate rests, that we should pass it, he expressed no strong feelings of any kind.
On general considerations, I would tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), if he were still in the Chamber, that I respectfully adopt every word of the argument he put so lucidly and forcefully and that, agreeing with him so fully, I would think it almost an impertinence if I were to add a word to it. From the practical point of view, the Motion, if we pass it, and the procedure which it invites us to adopt are at the worst embarrassing and at the best ineffective.
Nobody has ever doubted that, under the Bill of Rights, this House has always been, and that it remains, the sole judge of what amounts to a breach of its own privileges and the steps it will take if it comes to the conclusion that its privileges have been breached. Nobody has ever denied—and this is the strength of the case—that Parliament can cut down its own privileges. Of course it can. That is what it did in the Act of 1770. By

Act of Parliament the House of Commons divested itself after 1770 of privileges which it had claimed and had not been ashamed to exercise before 1770.
The Motion asks the House to submit to the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the question whether, in divesting itself of privileges in 1770, the House also divested itself of the privilege which it has attached to the speeches of its Members made in the House of Commons. In the course of the debate it has been doubted whether we were putting that point in, but line 3 of the Motion puts in just that in express terms. It says
…whether the House would be acting contrary to the Parliamentary Privilege Act, 1770, if it treated the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament in respect of a speech or proceeding by him in Parliament as a breach of its Privileges.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) said that he had never heard that Privilege questioned. He is quite right; it never was questioned in the whole history of Parliament until the day when the present Attorney-General questioned it before the Committee of Privileges. I do not say that if doubt is cast upon the legality of what the House has been doing for 187 years and it is seriously questioned the House would be foolish, without being in derogation of its dignity or anything else, to refer that point to the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Suppose we pass the Motion and submit the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Suppose the Judicial Committee were to decide that the Attorney-General was right and that, by the Act of 1770, the House of Commons had deprived the House of Commons and its Members of the absolute privilege which has always been deemed to attach to the speeches of its Members made in this Chamber. If it decides that, is there one Member, including the Attorney-General, who would be content to leave it there? Does anyone think that our Parliamentary institutions could work effectively or at all unless there were an absolute privilege attaching at any rate to what we say on the Floor here?
It has been said in the course of the debate, and I think it is in the Report, that we would be all right, because if anybody issued a writ against us the


courts would eliminate and stop the proceedings, being absolutely sure that absolute privilege attached to it. With great respect, I seriously question whether that is so. There is no privilege, qualified or absolute, established for Members of Parliament by any Statute.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Bill of Rights.

Mr. Silverman: With great respect, I submit that that interjection begs the question. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to assume that we have submitted to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the question whether the Act of 1770 destroyed that privilege, and to assume that the Judicial Committee decides that we have destroyed that Privilege by the Act of 1770. I say that in those circumstances no court would hold that there was any privilege whatsoever attaching to what was said by a Member speaking in this House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who was so sensitive about being interrupted that he has gone away and has not come back, so he will never hear what is said of him, made a speech. If no privilege attached to what he said this afternoon he would be liable in very heavy penalties in the courts for giving further publication to the libel of which, on this basis, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) was guilty in writing to the Minister. In pleading that this thing should not be regarded as privileged my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South was cutting the ground from under his own feet in the speech he was making.
There is an old rule that we must not and cannot, at this time of day, extend our privileges, but if we were to seek to amend the law 41 order to restore a privilege of which, ex hypothesi, we divested ourselves 187 years ago, no one could argue that a Measure of that kind was not designed to 'extend the privileges by restoring something which had lapsed for 187 years. I am not saying that is a necessary view. It might be possible to say that an Act' of Parliament which restored privilege was still open to us because it was not claiming a new privilege or adding one.

Mr. Woodburn: Supposing the Judicial Committee decided that, what would then

happen to all the speeches which had gone by in the 187 years? Would they be libellous and subject to action?

Mr. Silverman: Subject to any statute of limitations, I suppose the answer is that they would. Even if it were decided to amend the law as we would certainly wish to do, we would merely have lost all that time with no compensating advantage of any kind, because no one will doubt that ultimately it is for the House of Commons to decide the desirability of the possession of any such privilege. In the end, the opinion of the Judicial Committee may advise us and we may accept the advice as being what is the present statutory position, but it cannot decide what are the political necessities of the case, and I think if it were to come to a decision adverse to the exercise of those privileges, Parliament would be bound to amend the law in order to restore it.
This may not be quite as true in respect of proceedings in Parliament other than speeches in this House, but I shall not delay the House to deal with those. It is quite clear that the Motion itself does place in issue, seriously in issue, as it was said there was a legal doubt about it, whether Members of Parliament making speeches on the Floor of the House have any privilege whatever. I say that whatever the Judicial Committee or any other court or place outside Parliament may say on that question, Parliament itself would be bound to and would, in fact, unanimously restore the privilege so declared not to exist.
If that is so, what is the good of this Motion? Why should we submit ourselves to this if ultimately we know in our hearts that we need this privilege and if we know in our hearts that if all the judges decided we had not got it, we would have to give it to ourselves? If we know we can and would give it to ourselves, let us not waste time by submitting purely technical and theoretical questions for a technical and theoretical decision which would have no ultimate bearing on the merits of the issue.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: There are two issues underlying this matter before us today and it is the second one with which the Motion is concerned. I found it very difficult indeed


to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman). As I understand it, quite clearly the issue we are proposing to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is whether this House, if it treated the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament as a breach of privilege, would be acting against the Act of 1770.

Mr. S. Silverman: In respect of a speech made here.

Mr. Bell: In respect of a speech or a letter, I quite agree, but the point we are proposing to refer to the Judicial Committee is whether we would be acting against the Statute of 1770 if we treated the issue of a writ in those circumstances as a breach of privilege. The hon. Member was arguing that what we were proposing to submit to that Committee was a question of whether rights had been abrogated or diminished in some way by the Act of 1770. In no sense does the Motion propose that at all.

Mr. Silverman: The Act of 1770 is called the Parliamentary Privilege Act and it is based entirely upon the Bill of Rights. There is no doubt that the privileges which we claim under the Bill of Rights were, in fact, cut down by the Act of 1770, and the question which would be proposed to the Judicial Committee is the question: just how far did it do so?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member has merely reaffirmed the opinions he voiced in his speech and contradicted the ones I have just been voicing.
I wish to continue by pointing out the very clear distinction between what the hon. Member says and I say is the true position. The issue we are putting to the Judicial Committee is whether the right procedure when a challenge to freedom of speech or whatever it is has occurred is that this House should proceed against the person issuing proceedings for contempt or whether the right remedy is for the hon. Member so attacked to plead parliamentary Privilege in those proceedings.
That is the only issue we are proposing to put to the Judicial Committee and, if the hon. Member will take the trouble to look at the relevant passage in the Bill of Rights, he will see that what it says is not that to bring proceedings against the Member is a breach of privilege. It

does not mention breach of privilege at all. It says:
The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.
I think it means, and I think the Attorney-General thinks it means, that if someone tries to impeach or question freedom of speech in Parliament, he will be prevented from doing so because as soon as he starts to do it, an hon. Member will plead Parliamentary privilege under the Bill of Rights and sustain that argument and that will be the end of the matter.
It is contended by some hon. Members and some members of the Committee of Privileges that the matter goes further than that and that, if somebody outside issues a writ against a Member for something said in Parliament, or written to a Minister, the right remedy is for this House to haul that person here as an offender in breach of Parliamentary privilege and commit him to the Tower, or something like that. That is the issue we are proposing to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and it is a purely procedural question as to what one does to secure one's rights under the Bill of Rights.

Mr. K. Zilliacus: Is not the issue much deeper? Is it not a question of whether the courts or this House determine what are the privileges of the House in any action?

Mr. Bell: That is probably another matter. I would agree with the hon. Member to that extent, but I was seeking to define the issue that we are proposing to put to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If the Judicial Committee finds compendiously in favour of the Attorney-General, it will not be finding that the privilege of freedom of speech guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is diminished in any respect. It will merely be saying that the right procedure is to enter a plea of parliamentary Privilege so that the courts may sustain it.

Mr. Ede: Does that not involve some expense, probably consulting with counsel to get the right drafting, and the usual arrangement by which no matter who loses learned counsel will win?

Mr. Bell: I am aware of the hostility which is expressed in this Chamber by the right hon. Member to the legal profession, but that is beside the point here.
We are not here considering or asking anyone else to consider, whether that is the right state of the law, or whether it should be changed. We are asking the Judicial Committee to tell us what, in fact, is the state of the law at present on this procedural issue. Therefore, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was quite wrong and was unintentionally misleading the House when he suggested that we were asking the Judicial Committee to say either that our privileges under the 1689 Act have been swept away or continue. It is no such thing at all.
The hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) raised the cognate point of whether the courts or this House were to be the arbiters of this question. I know that after the case of Stockdale v. HANSARD, and the Resolution of 1837, on one side the House was saying that we are the sole arbiters and, on the other side, the courts were saying they were the arbiters of Parliamentary privilege. One could back his fancy in that historic race. I can only offer my opinion, which is that as soon as Parliament began to regulate Parliamentary privilege by Acts of Parliament, that argument was really over.
As long as the House of Commons tried to regulate its Privilege by Resolution, it could maintain that position of 1837, but as soon as we began to pass Acts of Parliament defining the boundary of Parliamentary privilege, quite inevitably we made the courts the final arbiters of what is the boundary of Parliamentary privilege.
Nor am I particularly worried that that should be the position, because the sovereignty of this House is unassailable. We are the preponderant part of the Legislature. If we do not like the court's interpretation, we can always over-rule it, but to do that we must act through the proper legislative procedure. That is the issue of principle at stake—not the sovereignty of this House, because that is quite secure.
That is my feeling about these matters. I do not agree with the majority of the Committee of Privileges that a letter from a Member to a Minister is a proceeding in Parliament. I find it possible to distinguish between a letter and, say, a draft Question, which I think must be a proceeding in Parliament and which must have absolute privilege if we are to carry

out our work here properly. On the other hand, I do not think that a letter to a Minister is a proceeding in Parliament.
That, however, is not the issue before us tonight, and even though I hold that view I should like the Motion to be passed, because this is an excellent opportunity for us to get the official ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council upon what is the right procedure for a Member whose important rights under the Act of 1770 are attacked. This is a matter which is in doubt and which might profitably be resolved.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: The contention of those who have opposed this Motion throughout has been that if we pass it we shall somehow transfer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council our own functions in relation to privilege. I believe that that argument is based on a confusion of thought. The question which it is proposed to submit to the Judicial Committee, in effect, is simply this: what is the true construction of the Parliamentary Privilege Act, 1770? I submit that that is the type of question which can be properly canvassed and decided only in a court of law.
It is extremely important, in a debate of this kind, that we should keep clear in our minds the division of functions between Parliament and the courts. The function of Parliament is to make statutes. The function of the courts is to interpret them. We shall only get into continuous difficulty if one body tries to usurp in any way the function of the other.
Although it is undoubtedly our business to decide, at any rate, in the first place, whether a breach of privilege has been committed in any case, when it comes to the interpretation of the statute we need the assistance of a judicial body. When I first saw this Motion the only question which arose in my mind was whether this was the way in which the opinion of a court ought to be obtained, or whether it would not have been better to wait until somebody brought an action. In this case it might have been the London Electricity Board. The matter would then have been tested through the courts and possibly up to the House of Lords.
Of course, that might have taken time, and it may be that the action would never


have been brought. In that event, the law would have been left in a state of doubt. In those circumstances, it seems to me that there is a positive advantage in obtaining an opinion from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
There is nothing extraordinary about the procedure. I do not think it is always realised that the Judicial Committee has two distinct functions, which are conferred upon it by statute. The first is to act as the final court of appeal for Commonwealth countries and territories outside this country, and, indeed, in ecclesiastical cases, too. The second is to decide points of law which are referred to it by special reference. It has happened not once but many times that points of law of great public importance have been referred to the Judicial Committee by special reference under the Judicial Committee Act, 1833. Personally, I can see nothing inappropriate in invoking that procedure at the present time.
It seems to me that if the Motion is passed there are three possible answers which the Committee may give to the question put to it. I am not saying for a moment, of course, which is the right answer. The Committee might adopt the view put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies); that is one answer.
Secondly, it might adopt the view which was adumbrated by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman); it might say that even a speech in this House was not protected. That would be a very startling result and I agree that almost certainly, if that were the answer, we should have to legislate.
There is a third alternative. The Committee might give the answer that, while a speech in this House was protected, the sort of proceeding in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was engaged was not a proceeding in Parliament and, therefore, was not protected.

Mr. Ede: How does my hon. and learned Friend think that the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) is to be mentioned to the Committee?

Mr. Foot: I am not saying that the Committee will deal with the actual case.

Obviously, it will not. But it may have to distinguish between a speech in Parliament and an activity which takes place outside the walls of this House. The Committee is asked to decide whether the issue of
a writ against a Member of Parliament in respect of a speech or proceeding by him in Parliament
is
a breach of its Privileges.
The Motion refers to a
speech or proceeding by him in Parliament.
It might well be that to answer that question the Judicial Committee would find it necessary to make up its mind as to what was a proceeding in Parliament.
A speech in Parliament presents no difficulty at all. A speech in Parliament is obviously a speech which is delivered in this Chamber. A proceeding in Parliament, on the other hand, requires definition, and it may be that the Judicial Committee would draw a distinction between a proceeding in Parliament meaning a proceeding in this Chamber and a proceeding in Parliament meaning something which is done outside the Chamber and is merely incidental to a Member's Parliamentary duties.
Let us assume for a moment that that is the answer which will be given. Personally, I should welcome such a result, because it seems to me that inevitably it would mean that when the matter was sent back to the Committee of Privileges, that Committee would be bound to reconsider its earlier conclusions, or, at any rate, it would reconsider conclusion (b). If not, and if the earlier conclusion of the Committee were accepted, we should have this fantastic position—that if the London Electricity Board issued a writ there would be no breach of privilege, but if, on the other hand, it proceeded as it did in this case and wrote a letter before action threatening to issue a writ, there would be a breach of privilege.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: Assuming for a moment that the Judicial Committee decided that a letter addressed by a Member of Parliament to a Minister was not covered by privilege, would my hon. and learned Friend be satisfied with that decision?

Mr. Foot: I will come to that in a moment.
It may well be that as a result of the Report of the Judicial Committee the Committee of Privileges will need to reconsider its conclusions in this case. Personally, I hope that that will happen, but I share the view of those hon. Members who have contended that in this matter we have extended the boundaries of privilege. It is perfectly obvious what the authors of the Bill of Rights had in mind when it was first passed. What they had in mind were simply words spoken in this House. They were basing themselves on the experience of earlier years; on the long contest with the Crown throughout the seventeenth century when, again and again, the Crown had sought to make Members liable for words spoken in debate.
It is quite clear that they had no notion in those days of questions to Ministers, or of documents that might pass outside the House. They certainly had no notion of letters written to Ministers in relation to the activities of statutory boards.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman go a step further and say whether, in his view, had letters to Ministers been common then, Parliament would have extended privilege to them?

Mr. Foot: That is such a hypothetical question, but I very much doubt if it would. We can only look at the circumstances in which the Bill was passed. It was not then the custom for Members to write to Ministers on all sorts of matters, and I would submit that it is perfectly clear that what they had in mind was the protection of debates in this House—

Mr. Ede: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend but does he therefore hold the view that in putting the exact words into the Bill of Rights about the freedom of speech, debates or proceedings in Parliament, the words about proceedings were tautologous?

Mr. Foot: I certainly do not. Certainly, there may have been other proceedings in the sense of, say, Petitions to this House. They would be a proceeding in the House. The Petition is a very ancient form of Parliamentary proceeding, and in the Journal of the House there can be found many examples of Petitions being presented to this House by petitioners coming to the Bar. That would be a proceeding in the House and would

be covered by the Bill of Rights. But, in recent years, we have greatly extended the boundaries of Parliamentary privilege—

Mr. Blackburn: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree, not we have extended them but have given them an interpretation in accordance with modern practice?

Mr. Foot: That may well be what was the intention of the Committee of Privileges and of this House, but what I am submitting is that the effect has been that we have, in fact, extended the boundaries of privilege.
One can see how that process took place. There is a reference in paragraph 4 of the Report of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act. It reads:
Cases may, however, easily be imagined of communications between one member and another, or between a member and a minister, so closely related to some matter pending in, or expected to be brought before, the House, that though they do not take place in the chamber or a committee room they form part of the business of the House, as, for example, where a member sends to a minister the draft of a question he is thinking of putting down or shows it to another member with a view to obtaining advice as to the propriety of putting it down or as to the manner in which it should he framed.
That was a step we took in the case of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act.
In this Report, we go a step further. In paragraph 11, page vii, we find:
Where a Member of Parliament writes to a Minister concerning a Nationalised Industry and criticises the administration of that industry or the conduct of the Minister, the Statutory Authority or its Subordinate Board and is not satisfied with the reply he has from the Minister, the Authority or the Board, it is a reasonable possibility that he will seek an opportunity to debate the matter in the House. That debate would certainly be a debate or proceeding in Parliament.

Mr. Woodburn: My hon. and learned Friend has very kindly given way. One or two things in his speech puzzle me. For instance, in a very clear speech from the other side we have been advised that a very simple question was being put to the Judicial Committee. My hon. and learned Friend now says that we are asking the Judicial Committee to interpret what "proceedings in Parliament" means. There is nothing about that in the question at all. That ceases to be a judicial question or a question of interpretation. According to my hon.


and learned Friend we are now asking the Judicial Committee to deal with our business, to decide what are proceedings in Parliament.

Mr. Foot: That may well be so, and that is the point I desire to bring to the attention of the House. There is a reference to
a speech or proceeding…in Parliament.
If the Judicial Committee is to answer that question, it seems to me that it must decide in the first place, what a proceeding in Parliament is. Until it has done that, it cannot answer the question that is put to it.
As I said, I hope that these earlier decisions of the Committee of Privileges are to be reconsidered, and one reason why I support the Motion is that I hope that, as a result of the Judicial Committee's advice, they will be so reconsidered. I know that a great many hon. Members who have spoken seem to think that we must, at all costs, maintain the privileges of the House of Commons. Of course, in a sense, we would all agree with that, but there is, I suggest, the other proposition; that we ought, at the same time, to be extremely vigilant to keep those privileges within proper limits, and we ought to observe the Resolution agreed to by both Houses in 1704, that it is not open to us to enlarge our privileges.
Parliamentary privilege has had a very chequered history. It is quite true that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it played a very important part when this House was resisting the pressure of the Crown. Quite a number of right hon. and hon. Members referred to the occasion when Charles I came, with soldiers at his back, to arrest the five Members, when he borrowed the Speaker's Chair, and, later, went out amidst cries of "Privilege, Privilege."
The history of Parliamentary privilege did not end there, however. When we come to the eighteenth century, parliamentary Privilege was something which was, in many ways, a considerable evil. Perhaps the least creditable chapter in the history of the House is when Parliament was dealing with the Middlesex election, and John Wilkes, and the publication of debates. That chapter ended with the occasion on 21st March, 1771,

when this House decided to send the Lord Mayor of London to the Tower. I do not think that anyone would defend those proceedings now.
The last big conflict over privilege took place in the case of Stockdale v. HANSARD. Since then, the question of the limits of privilege had hardly ever been raised until the Report of the Committee of Privileges and the debate today. But in recent years—and I agree here with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and a number of other hon. Members—there has been a tendency to invoke Parliamentary privilege much too often.
There have been far too many cases when hon. Members have complained here of contempts of this House. I think that that is a view very widely held on both sides. I agree, therefore, with those hon. Members on both sides who have suggested that the time has come when we ought to put our house in order, when we ought to have a very comprehensive review of the limitation of Parliamentary privilege, and when we ought to make up our minds as to the sort of occasion when Privilege should properly be invoked.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We have had an interesting debate, and, in view of the fact that hon. Members wish to discuss questions of procedure, I think that despite the importance of this subject we ought now if we can to bring this matter to a conclusion.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) went a little wider than the Motion on the Paper and gave us some interesting points of view about Parliamentary procedure and its history. We are glad to have him back with us. But I do not propose to follow him into these details, because if I did, I might make the sort of speech which I was tempted to make in opening, namely one of the great speeches of our time on Parliamentary procedure, which I do not think this debate is about.
I should like to say that I have taken the best legal and Parliamentary ad vice—Parliamentary advice to suit the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and legal advice to suit my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and—have balanced them. The best legal


and Parliamentary advice that I can obtain is that if the House passes this Motion no question of surrendering our privileges to an outside body arises at all. I can give the House that assurance. I can follow up with the assurance that I gave earlier, namely that when the decision conies back from the Judicial Committee it will be in the form of advice to us, and it will be up to this House to accept it or reject it, or send it to the Committee of Privileges, or to do whatever it likes with it. That is the only possible circumstance in which we can take this action.

Mr. Pickthorn: Whether or not we accept the Privy Council's advice, what does my right hon. Friend think the courts would do about it?

Mr. Butler: The answer is that it all depends on what we do, and then we shall see what the courts do. I am not going to tell the courts ahead what Parliament is going to do when we receive this advice from the Judicial Committee.
To put the matter straight, the hon. Member for Ipswich referred to the Act of 1833, and it is that Act which will be operating in this case. We shall be referring this matter under Section 4 of that Act which says:
That it shall be lawful for His Majesty to refer to the said Judicial Committee for Hearing or Consideration any such other Matters whatsoever as His Majesty shall think fit.…
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Ipswich for reminding the House that that is the Statute under which we are acting.
To sum up the debate, I think I ought to say that the balance of opinion is in favour of letting this go forward. That is to say, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) came out in favour, just, on the side of allowing this legal point to be considered by the Judicial Committee.
Before I come to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), I should like to refer to a point which was made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, himself a former Chairman of the Committee of Privileges. He took up a point about our procedure which had been raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields. I would only say in all humility that the procedure of the Committee of Privileges was arranged

and ordered throughout by the Members, and the right hon. Member for South Shields is quite right in saying that from the start he wanted to see all the papers relating to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). In fact, he used the very disquieting phrase that he wished to see the body before deciding what to do next. He was absolutely consistent throughout in his view, and his speech is perfectly legitimate to that extent.
In answer to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, I would say that the Committee's work was divided up into the early part when we considered the first part of the Report of the Clerk of the House, and then into the second part dealing with the specific case of the right hon. Gentleman. It was when we came to the specific case that we considered the relevant papers which were put before us. I speak only as Chairman, and on these matters the Committee of Privileges decides by deliberation its own procedure. It is as Chairman of that Committee that I have moved this Motion.
In answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I had considered, even before I moved the Motion, whether it was necessary to move it. As I say, I moved it only in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges and because there was a majority on that Committee of six to three in favour of such a Motion. Therefore, I had no alternative to moving it.
Having listened to the debate, am I in favour of withdrawing the Motion? My answer is that I am not in favour of withdrawing the Motion because, on listening to the debate, I do not find that the balance of argument has gone against this safeguard, and I do find, on balance, that it is worth taking this serious step. I say "serious step" because of its lack of precedent.
Let us examine the case, and I will promise not to detain the House too long. The whole thing was summed up in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when he said that the Committee interpreted courageously and correctly the Bill of Rights, and then he said, "Why pass the decision about the Act of 1770 in its relationship to the Bill of Rights to someone else? Parliament is supreme


and we should have decided it." That is the gravamen of the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and of various others who have taken part in the debate. They say, "If the Committee, up to paragraph 17 of its Report, took a courageous line, why did the Committee not pursue this line right through and itself interpret the Statute of 1770?"
I think that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich has given the answer. It is for Parliament to make the laws and for the courts to interpret them. I do not think that we would do wrong by appealing to the highest legal body we can find to interpret the Act of 1770? Why? Because after we pass paragraph 17, up to which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) thought the Committee was courageous, we find this in paragraph 18:
The attention of the Committee was drawn, however, to an Act of 1770, entitled the Parliamentary Privilege Act, 1770, and it is contended that the effect of that Act, reading it with the Bill of Rights of 1688, is that institution (or the threat of the institution), of legal proceedings against a Member of Parliament, even in respect of his speech, part in debate, or proceeding in Parliament, cannot be treated as a breach of Privilege, that the Member must enter an appearance within the proper time to the writ and state that he intends to defend the action, and that when the matter comes before the court, he can then claim that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings as he is entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights of 1689".
It goes on to say that, as the matter is a legal one, it should be referred to the Judicial Committee.
The balance of argument is this. There is a case for the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne with his usual dialectical ability. His point was that if we have one result from the Committee it will be a waste of time, and if we have another result it will be embarrassing. There is a case for that argument. There is also a case for the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) who I thought made a very clear contribution to the debate, and the argument of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). They both made it clear that if we leave the situation in that way, hon. Members in the future may be in a great deal of embarrassment. This

point was also made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I think those views are shared by all hon. Members. It is not, as I said, a party matter or a matter for the Government. It is a matter for the House of Commons.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked what might happen in the future. That is very uncertain. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, on the other hand, said that as we had lived for 187 years or some such time without this threat—indeed 120 years, since the Resolution of 1837, can certainly be taken as the time we have lived without this threat—why take the trouble to look into the Act. Why not let sleeping dogs lie? The answer is that this dog has been kicked up. What will this dog do next? Will it go for Members in the future or not? I am not frightened of whether or not it will go for the privileges of Parliament. I am not frightened for the privileges of Parliament, whatever this dog may do, because we can shoot the animal. We can do what we like to it. I am one of those unrepentantly in defence of the liberties and privileges of the House and I would not be worthy of my position if I were not. I do not want this animal prowling about without knowing what sort of teeth it has. That is what we want to find out from the veterinary surgeon to whom we are sending the question.
We wish to obtain from the Judicial Committee a ruling on what this Act means in the context of the Act of 1688. That is what we are asking the House to do. There is a slight danger in this step. I do not take the view that anybody who has spoken against this Motion has done so from any lack of consideration of their proper position as a Member of Parliament. There is a danger in this step. We may have an embarrassing situation to deal with in the light of the findings of the Judicial Committee. I would not go so far as the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, because I do not know what that finding will be. I want to wait to see what it is. I do not necessarily follow him in his further reasoning. I do not know what the situation will be. I want to reassure the House and say that we shall certainly retain the right to take whatever action is necessary.
I come now to another point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne,


and I take up also a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich and other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, If in 1704 it was said that we could not extend our privileges, how can we, for instance, take action in this case to extend them if we want to? I take the view—it is my personal view, and if I put it as such I suppose I shall have to stand for it afterwards—that if the reading together in this year of grace 1957 of the Statute of 1770 and the Bill of Rights of 1688–89 means that our privileges are eroded, then I regard it as being even within Resolutions of Parliament as before at least to restore our privileges to what they ought to be. That is really the point of the submission.
There is doubt about the content of the Act and what the Section means. In order to get rid of that doubt, we are submitting it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I therefore appeal

to the House, on the strength of the few remarks that I have been able to make, to come to this decision. I appeal to hon. Members not to enlarge the issue, not to renounce their privileges, not to feel that we shall not defend a Member in the ordinary course of the transaction of his duties as a Member, which we must do, as a House of Commons, in modern times.

In conclusion. I take up the last words of the Clerk in submitting his Memorandum which are, I think, eloquent today:
Parliamentary procedure is constantly changing and developing new forms and I think that it is for the House to take the initiative in interpreting its novel procedures in the terms of its ancient rights and immunities.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 106.

Division No. 15.]
AYES
[8.43 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kershaw, J. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Finlay, Graeme
Kirk, P. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Leavey, J. A.


Armstrong, C. W.
Foot, D. M.
Leburn, W. G.


Ashton, H.
Fort, R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Atkins, H. E.
Freeth, Denzil
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Baldwin, A. E.
Gammans, Lady
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Barber, Anthony
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Barlow, Sir John
Glover, D.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Barter, John
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Godber, J. B.
McAdden, S. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Goodhart, Philip
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, H. R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Black, C. W.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Grant-Ferris. Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Green, A.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gretham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mann[...]ngham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marshall, Douglas


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gurden, Harold
Mathew, R.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maude, Angus


Bryan, P.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mawby, R. L.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mitchison, G. R.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Harvey, Sir Arthur (Macclesfd)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Champion, A. J.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Cole, Norman
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nairn, D. L. S.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hesketh, R. F.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Cooper, A. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hornby, R. P.
Page, R. G.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Howard, John (Test)
Pearson, A.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Peel, W. J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Deedes, W. F.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pott, H. P.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, J. Enoch


Drayson, C. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, David (East[...]gh)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Duncan, Sir James
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Kaberry, D.
Roper, Sir Harold


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Sharples, R. C.


Errington, Sir Eric
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)




Spearman, Sir Alexander
Teeling, W.
Webbe, Sir H.


Speir, R. M.
Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Steele, T.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Woollam, John Victor


Storey, S.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.



Studholme, Sir Henry
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Mr. Doughty and


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson.




NOES


Albu, A. H.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Popplewell, E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holmes, Horace
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prootor, W. T.


Balfour, A.
Hunter, A. E.
Pryde, D. J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, H. E.


Blackburn, F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, John


Blyton, W. R.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rawlinson, Peter


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowles, F. G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brookway, A. F.
Kenyon, C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Callaghan, L. J.
Lawson, G. M.
Royle, C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lipton, Marcus
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Currie, G. B. H.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
MacDermot, Niall
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McInnes, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, Stephen (Morthyr)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Usborne, H. C.


Delargy, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Viant, S. P.


Dye, S.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wade, D. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mason, Roy
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fletcher, Eric
Monslow, W.
Witkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Moyle, A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Gibson, C. W.
Oram, A. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, C. F.
Oswald, T.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paget, R. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hastings, S.
Peart, T. F.
Mr. Parker and


Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, N.
Mr. Sydney Silverman.


Herbison, Miss M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing and consideration the question of law, whether the House would be acting contrary to the Parliamentary Privilege Act, 1770, if it treated the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament in respect of a speech or proceeding by him in Parliament as a breach of its Privileges, in order that the said Judicial

Committee may, after hearing argument on both sides (if necessary), advise Her Majesty thereon; and further praying that Her Majesty, upon receiving the advice of the said Judicial Committee, will be pleased to communicate such advice to this House, in order that this House may take such action as seems to it proper in the circumstances.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

PROCEDURE

First and Second Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session of Parliament to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Considered accordingly.

8.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the First and Second Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session of Parliament.
I shall try not to be long, but I must make some observations on these Reports so that the House may have an opportunity of expressing its opinion. The Secretary of State for Scotland will wind up the debate, but I shall have to mention a certain amount of Scottish business, not because I wish to trespass upon the preserves of my right hon. Friend, but to show what the Government have in mind in relation to the Scottish Grand Committee. First, I should like to thank the members of the Select Committee for their work, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) for being Chairman.
These comparatively minor amendments do themselves mount up to quite a lot, and they show that we work in this House by a process of evolution; and I hope that eventually it will make our procedure better. I think it is most important that our procedure should be fully understood outside the House so that we are followed properly in the Press and people realise what we are trying to do.
The First Report dealt with the moving of Amendments on going into Committee of Supply upon the Navy, Army, Air and Civil Estimates, the practice relating to Money Resolutions, and the extension of the Standing Orders relating to public money to expenditure from funds partly but not wholly financed from the Exchequer.
I need not say very much about that, because we have already started on that practice in considering the Navy, Army, and Air Estimates. I announced this on 2nd May last, and we agree with the Select Committee that the existing practice for balloting for and moving of Amendments on going into Committee

of Supply on the Civil Estimates should remain unchanged.
I come, therefore, next, as we have had some experience of this change, to the question of Money Resolutions. The Select Committee recommended that there should be no change, but considered that it would be both valuable and important if the Government could reaffirm the statement made by the Prime Minister, in 1937, that it is their definite intention to secure that Money Resolutions in respect of Bills shall be so framed as not to restrict the scope within which the Committee on the Bill may consider Amendments further than is necessary to enable Her Majesty's Government to discharge their responsibility for public expenditure.
That I reaffirm on behalf of the Government. It is a matter in which hon. Members are always interested and we are grateful for the advice of the Select Committee in spurring us further onwards. We wish to leave the Committee the utmost freedom of discussion and amendment of detail compatible with the discharge of our financial responsibilities.
Written instructions, I said on 9th May, were being given to Departments and to the Parliamentary Counsel's Office drawing attention to the Select Committee's Report and statement on Money Resolutions. That has been done. I also stated at that time that the Government would take note of the Committee's view that there was no reason for extending the Standing Orders relating to public money to cover purposes other than those for which they already provide. I hope that hon. Members will approve this attitude, also.
So much for the new procedure for Navy, Air and other Estimates and the reference to Money Resolutions. Now for the quorum. The Committee's Second Report deals, first, with the numbers required to form a quorum of and for the Closure in Standing Committees and, secondly, with the constitution of the Scottish Standing Committee. It is obvious that a great deal of the work of the House falls on Standing Committees and it is most important, therefore, that they should function as efficiently and as smoothly as possible. The House will remember that there has been recently a report on the alleged hard work of Cabinet Ministers. It would be a very


good thing if we made the work of some hon. Members less heavy than it has been, especially that of those who come in the morning and stay here all day to work in the Standing Committees and in the House in the evening.
The Procedure Committee, previous to the one whose Report we are now considering, made a first Report in 1945 and approved the proposal to refer substantially all Bills to Standing Committee, except Bills like Money Bills and Bills of constitutional importance. It was contemplated then, and we intend now, that almost all Bills should go upstairs, except those of the type to which I have referred. This seems common sense as a means of conserving time and keeping to time on the Floor of the House and also because generally a smaller Committee upstairs can do the work better. A Committee of the whole House is all very well for the Finance Bill, and so forth, but it is rather unwieldy for these other Bills.
The Select Committee recommends that the numbers for a quorum and the Closure should be the same and in future should be 15 for Committees of 45 or more and 12 for Committees of 35 to 45 members. This is in place of the present quorum of 15 and the present 20 required for the Closure. These recommendations seem to the Government very reasonable, because they facilitate the use of Standing Committees by allowing for rather smaller Committees.
It appears to us that the numbers required at present are on the high side. I could go into a series of mathematics to show that even in relation to what we demand on the Floor of the House they are too high. It seems, therefore, quite clear that the numbers required for both the Closure and the quorum in Standing Committee have erred on the side of over-caution up to date. I realise that safeguards are necessary, but I do not think that they are really as necessary upstairs as we have thought in the past.
Therefore, for these reasons the Select Committee's proposal to reduce slightly the numbers needed for the quorum and Closure appear eminently sensible. So does the return to the practice, prior to 1947, of choosing the same figure for the two purposes. The Government, therefore, accept the view of the Select Committee that the present practice should

continue whereby the Clerk of the Committee has to bring to the notice of the Chairman the lack of quorum at any time. We will take steps, after listening to the debate, to put down the necessary Orders to achieve these results.
I come now to the Committee's other recommendations in the Second Report dealing with the constitution of the Scottish Standing Committee. Here, the Select Committee made three recommendations relating to the handling of Scottish business in Committee. The first of these, as hon. Members will remember, dealt with Affirmative Orders related to such Statutory Instruments as apply in Scotland alone; that is to say, cases in which no comparable Orders had been or were likely to be, tabled for England and Wales. It was proposed by the Select Committee, on the initiative of the Government, and with the general agreement of the House, that such Orders should be referred for consideration to the Scottish Standing Committee.
We have made examination of all the Affirmative Orders relating to Scotland over a period of more than five years and it is shown that the number falling within the category referred to by the Committee is very small indeed. In practice, therefore, were we to accept this recommendation, it would make almost no difference so far as Scotland is concerned. Moreover, the idea of referring an Affirmative Order to a Standing Committee involves an entirely new departure in our procedure and we are usually reluctant to make changes of that sort unless there are strong reasons for so doing. We do not feel that the case is strong enough to make a change and we have not, therefore, the circumstances to make the change desirable. So we feel on this matter that it would be unwise to make a procedural innovation of the kind suggested. Now it will be for hon. Members to say what they think, and my right hon. Friend will reply.
The second recommendation was that two days before 31st March in each Session the Scottish Standing Committee should consider Motions relating to matters within the administrative responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. These would be referred to it on procedure similar to that under which a Bill relating to Scotland can be referred to the Standing Committee upon Second


Reading. What, in our view, must weight the argument in favour of this proposal is the fact that under the present Government the responsibilities falling on the Secretary of State for Scotland have been substantially increased.
The Scottish Office now bears the whole weight of labour in various fields which previously were within the scope of United Kingdom Departments. It is natural that Scottish Members should wish additional time for debating these subjects. On the other hand, the House will wish to consider whether the expenditure of these extra mornings is justified. It will mean extra time for Scottish Members and Ministers.
As we are aware of the heavy extra work that the Scottish Members have to undertake, the House had better give a little consideration to this before committing itself. We should like to listen to the views expressed by hon. Members. I can assure the Scottish Members that our aim is that Scottish affairs should be fully and effectively discussed, and that the outcome of these discussions on Scottish affairs should lead to a happier relationship even than exists at present between Scotland and England. Therefore, the Government will consider sympathetically any general expression of opinion that these extra days should be provided. So much for the second proposal.
The third recommendation, the one to which I think many Scottish Members attach a lot of importance, refers to the handling of a Bill in Committee. It is suggested by the Procedure Committee that the Scottish Standing Committee should henceforth consist of 45 Members representing Scottish constituencies. These would be nominated by the Committee of Selection, which would also have power to nominate additional Scottish Members taking into account—as hon. Members will remember from the phrasing of the Report—the individual wishes and special qualifications of those Members and thus ensuring a due balance of parties. It should also nominate further Members from non-Scottish constituencies for these purposes. The Committee so constituted should be known as the Scottish Standing Committee.
The Procedure Committee further proposed that when the Scottish Committee was considering Estimates, or the prin-

ciple of a Bill, or other matters which it suggested should be referred to it, it should consist of all Members representing Scottish constituencies, together with members added by the Committee of Selection, as has been done up to now. In these circumstances, it should be described formally as the Scottish Grand Committee.
The Government feel that the principle of distinguishing between a Standing Committee with numbers comparable with those of other Committees of this House which consider the Committee stage of a Bill, and the full Scottish Grand Committee to consider Estimates or the principles of Bills or Motions, is a useful one. It will no doubt be the unanimous, or almost unanimous, view of the House that all Scottish Members should be able to take part in debate of the principle of any matter relating to Scotland. It also seems sound that for efficient working in detailed consideration of a Committee stage of a Bill that a smaller number of Members is desirable.
Certainly, having watched, during my time as Leader of the House, the considerable strain that has been imposed on the Scottish Grand Committee and its large membership, I think that these numbers are sensible. So I would hope that the only points at issue would be those which relate to the best means of constituting this number. It seems to us undesirable that the Committee of Selection should be left without a directive as to the number of Members which should be added. Our view is that in considering the composition, of the Scottish Standing Committee—as opposed to the Scottish Grand Committee—the simplest and most effective line of approach would be to follow closely the procedure used in setting up other Standing Committees. If this were done, the nucleus would, of course, consist entirely of Scottish Members, but it might be advantageous not to appoint them on a permanent basis, as is done for other Standing Committees.
Fifty Scottish Members seems to the Government to be an adequate maximum, and, since not all Bills referred to the Scottish Committee are of equal importance or interest—I refer to the maximum—the Government propose that the Scottish Standing Committee should number from 30 to 50 on the understanding


that for major Scottish Bills the normal practice would be to nominate 45 to 50 members. Within this limit, the Committee of Selection should have power to include a limited number of Members from other than Scottish constituencies where desirable for reasons of party balance or to make use of a Member's special knowledge of the subject under discussion. There would be no "permanent" Members of the reduced Standing Committee, but the composition would be varied to meet the reasonable interest of individual Scottish Members in particular subjects.
We hope, therefore, that that carries out, at any rate, the spirit of the Report of the Committee. All Scottish Members would, of course, continue to sit on the Scottish Grand Committee. These proposals are intended to ensure that all Scottish Members take part in the work of the Scottish Standing Committee but that none is asked to carry an unduly heavy burden; and the Government accordingly recommend them to the House.
As I said previously, we want to hear what hon. Members have to say about the proposals, and that is why, in moving the Motion, I have had to go into detail so as to put the plan on these various matters, both English and Scottish, before the House—the three Scottish matters, the matter of the affirmative Resolution, the second question to which I referred, and this matter of the constitution of the Committee.
We must, at the same time, avoid overburdening Members with too much work and leaving them insufficient time and opportunity to play their part in other committees discussing United Kingdom Bills which also affect Scotland. Nor must we overburden Scottish Members and unduly handicap them in playing a proper part in the working of Parliament in the broader fields which concern our United Kingdom and the Commonwealth where we so much want the help of the Scottish Members. I hope now that hon. Members will give their views, if they can in the time available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who is more acquainted with this subject even than I am, will be able to enlighten hon. Members if I have not made things clear.

Mr. John Rankin: Can the Leader of the House possibly say a little more about the 30 he mentioned as being the minimum number of Members on a Committee to deal with a minor Bill? Will that 30 be decided by the Government alone? Will there be consultation as to whether there is general agreement about the Bill being minor in character?

Mr. Butler: The answer is, in short, that in so far as the Government would come in, it would be through the usual channels to discuss that sort of question about the nature of the Bill. The constitution of the Committee would be done by the Committee of Selection. The Government would confine themselves to discussing with the Opposition whether we were in agreement with the nature of the Bill.

Mr. James McInnes: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figures 30 to 50. Presumably the number would be increased according to the importance of the Measure before the Committee. He went on to say that other hon. Members would be added who did not necessarily represent Scottish constituencies. Would they be included in the 30 to 50?

Mr. Butler: I did not say that we should go above the 50 maximum. That is certain. We cannot go above that, because our precise object is to get Standing Committees which are small enough to be workable. The 30 to 50 means that discretion will be exercised partly by discussion between the two sides and partly by the Committee of Selection, whether the Committee should be small at 30, large at 50 or intermediate at 40, or some such figure.

Mr. McInnes: At what stage would the Members come in who do not represent Scottish constituencies.?

Mr. Butler: I said that the Committee of Selection would have power to include a limited number of Members from other than Scottish constituencies, where desirable for reasons of party balance. One problem in making up the small Committee is to keep it a microcosm of the House as a whole. Another reason was to enable us to include experts in particular subjects.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: It would be difficult for me, having been a Member of the Select Committee, to join personally in thanks to the Committee, but the Committee and the House generally would unanimously extend their thanks to the Chairman for the very wise way in which he handled the proceedings. We may have a tinge of regret that the wisdom that came from this handling of the proceedings has not been unanimously accepted by the Government, but that does not detract from the very wise way in which the Chairman dealt with a very useful subject. I am sure hon. Members are grateful to the Committee for the kind of work it did in trying to settle a difficult matter.
The House would have found it irksome to deal with what was, in fact, a dispute among the Scots themselves. When the former Secretary of State raised the matter of reducing the size of the Committee, we made an attempt, at my request, to see whether it could be done by agreement. Agreement proved impossible, so the Government went ahead and appointed a Select Committee to act, in a way, as judge between the different contentions that were being put forward.
The House has greatly extended its freedom to deal with major matters by the use of Standing Committees. Every Standing Committee that deals with work upstairs sets the House free to deal with what it regards as much more important matters. Purely Scottish Bills go to the Scottish Standing Committee, which includes all Scottish Members at the moment and 10 to 15 non-Scottish Members added to preserve the balance of parties and to provide for United Kingdom representation as a whole.
I think it is generally agreed that 86 is a very big Committee. It has been contended that extensive sittings of this Committee deprive the Scots of opportunities for sitting on other important United Kingdom Committees and in general from performing their duties fully as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. Ministers certainly have difficulty when they must be in attendance on other Committees. They cannot be both there and in the Scottish Grand Committee.
To meet this point the former Secretary of State proposed that for its consideration on the Committee stage of a Bill the Scottish Committee should be reduced in size to approximately the same number as other Committees, from 20 to 50. That was rather alarming to the Scots, most of whom want to play their part in dealing with Scottish business. The Scots have never regarded this Committee merely as a Standing Committee. That makes a distinction between it and other Committees. The very fact that all Scottish Members served on it made it a form of devolution, and as such it was accepted in Scotland.
When in 1948 the House agreed to accept my proposals to make it possible for the House to remit discussion on the Second Reading of Bills, and that the Committee might sit up to six days to discuss Scottish Estimates, that strengthened the case for it being regarded as a form of devolution. Indeed, those were the words by which the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, which reported in 1954, commended the arrangements. All this was embodied in the conception known by common usage as the "Scottish Grand Committee," a name which remained for this Committee alone. The opposition to the Government proposals arose, therefore, out of the feeling that the Scots were to lose a cherished right. Those who wanted to play their part in the Scottish Standing Committee saw no reason why they should be excluded solely to permit other members not to attend for whatever reason. It may be agreed that some Members do not want to attend, but why should those who want to play their part be excluded?
Since no compromise was possible by agreement, the Select Committee had to consider the two points of view. One thing was generally agreed. It was an undesirable accompaniment of the present arrangement that from ten to fifteen non-Scottish Members were compelled to attend this Committee. Since they often had no interest and on occasion were unable to follow the controversies, it was really a painful duty. We noticed that on occasion this task was passed on generously by the Whips to some new Member, probably as part of his education.
At first it did not appear even on the Select Committee that we could get agreement amongst ourselves. As the evidence proceeded, however, the Committee felt it could propose a possible solution which would meet the views of those who wanted a smaller Committee, but which would not of necessity debar Scottish Members who wanted to serve from being members of the Committee. The Select Committee recommended that the Scottish Standing Committee should be reduced to a minimum of 45 from Scottish constituencies and that the Committee of Selection should be empowered to add other Members—from any part of the House—to take full account of the individual wishes and special qualifications of Members and to ensure the balance of parties.
I agree that in theory this could mean that the Scottish Standing Committee might still on occasion consist of the same number of members as at present. That, of course, would be no change. That would be what we are being asked to give up. In practice, however, the Committee of Selection could be trusted to treat this matter with reason, and normally the Committee would be on a reduced scale.
The reason why the possibility of the full existing Committee being constituted was retained was another distinction between this Scottish Committee and normal Standing Committees. It was argued, for example, that on United Kingdom Committees not all hon. Members could serve, and that is true. Of course, with very important Bills it is occasionally thought desirable to take them in Committee of the whole House, which gives every hon. Member the right to be present. This could also be done with Scottish Bills of that character, but the growing pressure on the timetable of the House was continually cropping up in our discussion and it was thought undesirable to do anything more to force back to the House additional work which had already been successfully devolved. The Leader of the House will not want more business brought back to his timetable if it can be successfully allocated upstairs.
We therefore recommend that this possibility be left with the Committee, confident that, in practice, the purpose will be served, namely, to reduce the size of the Committee. Instead of the Bill being

discussed by the House on the Floor of the House, it would achieve the same purpose for the Scots by leaving with the Committee of Selection the possibility of what might be described as a full House of Scots.
It was also with this combined purpose in mind—to give Scots Members more time to discuss their own affairs but at the same time to relieve the timetable of the House itself—that the Select Committee decided to recommend two further developments of the procedure agreed in 1948. These were that it should be possible for Motions to be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee in the same way as Bills are now referred and that affirmative Motions for the approval of Statutory Instruments could also be referred under this procedure to the Scottish Grand Committee for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have rejected this, at least provisionally, on the ground that there were too few of them. I think he will agree with me that if there had been a great many he would have rejected it on the ground that it would have provided too much work upstairs.
The fact that there are so few is, in my opinion, a reason for accepting the recommendation, because it is an additional devolution of work which now takes place here between 10.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. It could be sent upstairs for discussion at a normal time of the day instead of being discussed here late at night. I also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, from my own experience, that it would remove a certain amount of irritation from the House, because the House is very often not able to discuss Prayers or even Affirmative Orders until 10.30 p.m. The Committee rejected the suggestion that Prayers should go to the Standing Committee, but Affirmative Orders seemed to fall into the same category as Bills, and I see no reason that the Government should not accept that recommendation.
It has been found difficult at the end of a Session to find days for all the business which the Scottish Standing Committee has to perform, and rather than accede to the proposal that two further days be given to the discussion of Estimates, the Committee feel that it would suit everyone better to have such discussions on Motions during an earlier part


of the Session. Indeed, this year when we wished to discuss the Estimates it was found that the problem of placing all the Votes on the Order Paper was so complicated that it was easier for the Estimates to be discussed by putting a Motion on the Order Paper. That was agreed through the usual channels as the best and only system.
It is for consideration when, and if, the House agrees to this proposal, whether all these days will not be put down in the form of Motions rather than having two different Standing Orders with two Motions, and six days on Estimates. If it is done in the form of Motions it relieves this House of this necessity of cramming the six days into the last part of the Session, and up to eight days can be taken whenever it is found suitable, through the unusual channels of making the necessary arrangements.
I think that that would suit the House, it would suit the Scots far better and, judging by what happened this year, it would be much better to have one Standing Order and deal with Motions instead of formal Estimates. Naturally, since it has to be put on the Order Paper by the Government, the matter is not one that can get out of control. This would free both Government and Opposition of the need for crushing these reviews into the final week of the Session, when legislation presses on time.
The Committee found it necessary to reject the other suggestions. It found that there were snags and difficulties that made their recommendation undesirable. It is hoped, however, in view of the time and effort given by the Committee to the limit that the House and the Government will give favourable consideration to the recommendations. Some modifications may prove desirable, but, generally, we would support the changes being made.
As to numbers, the Committee those 45 because that is generally the number on Committees on important Government Bills. There is nothing sacrosanct about the figure of 45, and it may be that the Standing Order could be made the same for all Standing Committees for all Bills. If so, I suggest respectfully that the Committee of Selection be left with discretion as to how many there should be. I know that when passing Bills in this House about courts, we are always inclined to stipulate the maximum and minimum

fines that people must pay, but a maximum and minimum is not necessary here. We have the Committee of Selection, and we should have enough confidence in it to realise that it will not do things foolishly. If this matter is left to the discretion of that Committee, as is suggested, it will deal with that according to advice received through the usual channels as to the people who desire to serve.
There is no doubt at all that a considerable number of Members have other activities, and the fear that, under the new dispensation, every Member will serve every day on the Scottish Grand Committee is, therefore, quite unjustified and unfounded. I feel that the Government would be wise, even if they altered the minimum number, to accept the Committee of Selection's recommendation that it should be left to it to decide how many should form each Committee. If that is done, the question of a maximum of 50 does not arise.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that, with a smaller Committee, it is necessary to introduce any non-Scots Members at all. One of the great advantages of reducing the number in this Committee is that it sets our poor non-Scottish colleagues free from this duty. None of them need serve at all. If they do, it is because of their special qualifications or interest, or because they have a special contribution to make to our work. But it is no longer necessary to put them there to maintain the balance of parties. That is one thing about which there is unanimity because, the Scots being a very sympathetic race, their hearts used to bleed for these poor chaps who had to sit through these long Committee meetings with a weariness of mind and a pain in the flesh.
During the Select Committee's researches it was very difficult to keep our minds from being constantly diverted to the bigger subject of the pressure of time on the House itself. In our own experience, we have seen a great development in the work and interests of hon. Members. Before the war, Europe, the Colonies and foreign affairs were only beginning to make demands on our time, but now, almost daily, we see the work of the House being extended to problems far beyond our shores.
It seems to me to be only a matter of time before we become integrated in


some way with Europe, or, certainly, with an Atlantic community—perhaps with an Atlantic Parliament and Government. The stirring of the people in Africa and the East, and the preservation of peace are already relatively dwarfing our domestic differences. Members of Parliament also are having to make personal study of other countries and play the part of unofficial ambassadors to establish friendly understanding among the Parliaments of the world.
It seems only wise, therefore, that as far as possible the House itself should be relieved of such domestic discussions as can be devolved to these Committees, and I hope the Government will not insist upon keeping on the Floor of the House work which can be remitted upstairs. This is already done with important matters such as breach of privilege, examination of accounts and estimates, and in the case of Scotland we have successfully referred uncontroversial Bills to the Scottish Grand Committee. My own view is that this is not a matter only of interest to Scottish Members of Parliament, but that the success of this devolution might be profitably studied to see whether we might not also learn lessons which could be applied to similar English and Welsh Bills and questions.
We sensed in listening to the evidence that there was, indeed, a feeling that the terms of remit to our Committee were much too restricted and that the time must soon come when the House would want to make a comprehensive review of its whole timetable and constitution. It may be that when that is done, events will compel us to find some way of devolving the consideration of the more domestic matters of Scotland, Wales and England itself from the Floor of the House, and enable Members to divide their time more efficiently among the many problems that call for attention.
Certainly this Committee found numerous instances, such as the problem of the Scottish Questions, when it almost felt compelled to think in terms of the timetable of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is giving an opportunity for an experiment applying to Scotland which, if it proves successful as the one in 1948 has proved, might indeed be a sign of things to come, and when the

House gets down to the job, as I think eventually it must, of reconsidering the working of its own timetable and of finding time to deal with the major matters that lie ahead, the experiments being carried out in regard to Scotland will be a valuable lesson which the House could with profit copy.
I hope that the Government, after hearing the discussion, will reconsider their decision to make the Scottish Standing Committee the same as all other Standing Committees, or at least that they will avoid imposing a restriction, which will in many cases prevent Scottish Members from doing work that they want to do, merely in order to suit the convenience of other Members who perhaps are not so anxious to be here all the time.

9.33 p.m.

Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: I find myself in considerable agreement with the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). That, indeed, might well be so, because I was a member of the Select Committee during all but the last two sittings of that Committee, and he and I, as well as the Chairman, were seeing eye to eye to perhaps a surprising extent.
During the last two meetings, however, for reasons not unconnected with the temporary occupation of the Chair, which you, Mr. Speaker, are now occupying, I found myself absented from the Committee, and in view of that I think I am free to divert a little from the Report as it was published, as I did not take part in the last discussions. I am bound to say that while I welcome most of the points which have been made, there is one fundamental point in connection with the constitution of the Scottish Standing Committee on which I differ from the Report and on which I see much more along the lines which the Leader of the House followed during his speech.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For our guidance, may I ask you this question? We are now listening to a member of the Committee telling us that he is in disagreement with a part of the Committee's Report. There is no minority report, and there is no indication in the Report to guide us towards the conclusion that the hon. and gallant Member


for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) has reached. Are any other members of the Commitee, who have given what appears to be a unanimous report, of the same mind as the hon. and gallant Member?

Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of that, but the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to say what he thinks is right in this House.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I had hoped in the personal remarks I made about my own position that I had made it clear. I hope that that is so. May I restrict my remarks to the one point, as it is getting late and many hon. Members, no doubt, wish to speak. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), I emphasise my agreement with the Committee where, in paragraph 15 it stresses the importance of differentiating as between the Scottish Grand Committee, which is to consider the Second Reading of Bills as to principle, and which is to have six days to consider Estimates and, possibly, an additional two days to consider Motions. I think that there is very little disagreement in the House that all Scottish Members must rightly be enabled to attend that Committee if they think fit.
So far as the working of the Scottish Grand Commitee goes, there is nothing in the argument that the size of the Committee of more than seventy Members makes it unwieldy. For the purpose of Second Reading debates, when broad principles are discussed, I do not think the size matters. It is when we are discussing triflng and rather repetitive Committee points in the Standing Committee that a large body of members tends to make the work unwieldy.
I wish again to emphasise my agreement with the Report of the Committee, of which I was a member, when it states in paragraph 17 that it was the aim of the Committee to reconcile divergent views held about cutting down the size of the Scottish Standing Committee. To a certain extent success was achieved.
Now I come to the point where, admittedly, I disagree with the finding, as it was eventually published, that it should be possible over and above the 45 Members, who, it was suggested, should constitute the Standing Committee, to enlarge the Committee to take account fully of the individual wishes and special

qualifications of other Members. It may not be now, but the time may easily come when the party feeling is so strong that the Opposition of the day, going all out to obstruct, so far as it is in order to obstruct, the work of the Government, would cause each and every individual to apply to the Selection Committee to be included in the Scottish Standing Committee. To counter such a move by Opposition Members, it would be inevitable that the Government of the day would meet that threat by urging an equal number of their own Members also to apply to the Selection Committee. If that were to come about, we would be left with the same position of too large a body of Members dealing with the Committee stage.

Mr. Woodburn: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has misunderstood the recommendation of the Committee, as the Government have also, I think, judging by the reports which have appeared in the Press. It is not suggested that the Committee of Selection is bound to include everybody who applies. There is no suggestion of that kind at all. The Committee would merely consider, as it always does on every Bill, whether people have a special interest, whether they have been speaking in the debates, and whether they ought to serve on the Committee. It would be up to the Committee of Selection to decide on the maximum number and to what requests it would accede.

Sir W. Ansthruther-Gray: I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has said that. It indicates that the difference between us is not so great as I had thought it might be. Equally, it must, surely show that the difference between his own view and the view advanced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not very great either. The figure of 45 was mentioned in one case and a maximum of 50 was mentioned by my right hon. Friend. There is not very much between us. When we are in the happy position of getting something like agreement, let us not seek to quarrel more than is absolutely necessary.
It is a thousand pities that some people have, for the benefit of the Scottish Press, tended to put before the country the accusation that those of us who have been keen to see this reform of the Scottish Standing Committee, purely for the Committee stage of Bills, were prompted by


motives other than those in the best interests of the good conduct of the business of the House in such a way that Scottish Members would make their weight felt in every possible way, not finding themselves spending far too much time in the Scottish Grand Committee when there were other things to be done elsewhere. I should like to read quickly, not in order to weary the House, but for the benefit of the public, a short extract from the evidence given to the Select Committee on Procedure by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, which is to be found on page 22 of the Report. He was showing how many other places there are for Members representing Scottish seats to be engaged while the Scottish Grand Committee is sitting, and said:
…in the Session 1955–56 the Scottish Committee sat for 22 days on the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Bill, 14 days on the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill, 5 days on the Local Government Street Works (Scotland) Bill, 5 days on the Teachers' Superannuation (Part II) Bill and 1 day on the Marriage (Scotland) Bill, plus 6 days on Estimates, totalling 53 days. And at that time major bills dealing with Dentists, Sugar, Road Traffic, Clean Air and Pensions (Increase) were going on more or less simultaneously with the sitting of the Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong to give the impression that it is a question of days. What he really means is mornings.

Mr. Rankin: Two and a half hours.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) says it is mornings, but I recollect very well that during the debates on the last Finance Bill there was occasion for the Scottish Standing Committee to sit in the afternoon as well as the morning, and great protest was raised by hon. Members opposite because it was said that Members were being prevented from taking part in the debate on the Finance Bill.
It may be said, and it has been said, that the difficulty can be overcome by the system of pairing. To a certain extent that is so, but there are times when, rightly or wrongly, tempers are frayed and Members are not ready to pair with one another. Again, to look at the competitive side of our political life—

Mr. George Lawson: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman now giving us a new reason for a reduction in the size of the Committee?

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: My reply to the hon. Member is "No". Furthermore, if there are times when we become hostile to one another, at General Elections, there is a little White Paper published once a year, as hon. Members know, which sets out the attendance of hon. Members at various committees. If it is seen that an hon. Member has attended the Scottish Committee for only ten days, whilst another hon. Member has attended on fifty occasions, it may be thrown at him that he was idle and neglectful in his duties, whereas, in fact, he might have been taking a prominent part in a Bill in another Standing Committee.

Mr. Rankin: It is a good thing to have an answer.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: It is not a bad thing to have an answer. It is better still never to be on the defensive.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Does the hon. Baronet not appreciate that the same White Paper will record the hon. Member's attendances at the other Committees? It will not identify Scottish Committees only but will identify his Committee attendances in total. Does the hon. Baronet further appreciate that some of the opposition to the status quo coming from this side of the House has been offered by hon. Friends of his who have stated in terms to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that they would not attend the Scottish Committee on Wednesday mornings because they had other work to do outside the House?

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Although the White Paper may refer to attendance at other Standing Committees, do not let the House think I am limiting my case to that. Attendance at Strasbourg has been mentioned more than once in the Report. Certainly, we want Scottish Members to go there. There are many delegations and deputations. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) referred to the importance of British Members of Parliament going over the world on various occasions. Surely, we want Scottish Members to be included on those occasions without too close a regard for the majority in the Standing Committee.
We can reach a general measure of agreement on this subject. Provided we are convinced that what we are doing is in the interests of Scottish representation, whether by Conservatives or Socialists, what we can be united in is desiring Scotland and her Members to play their full part in the work of the United Kingdom Parliament.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: The hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) has managed to stir up in the minds of some of my hon. Friends a number of memories of the earlier part of the controversy about this matter. Although I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member, that prompts me to say that this is not a party issue. We are dealing with something which is a matter of the House of Commons and not a matter in which the two parties simply face each other with different points of view.
The reason why I do not want to follow the hon. and gallant Member in what he said is because I want to turn to the speech of the Leader of the House. I can quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman is no longer with us. He opened, sat through and closed the preceding debate. Having sat through it myself except for about ten minutes, I find myself fatigued with simply having listened to the arguments. I can quite see that have delivered his third speech this evening, the right hon. Gentleman did not feel obliged to stay.
The Lord Privy Seal, was, however, courteous enough in dealing with this general matter to give the lion's share of his time to Scottish affairs. I should like to return the courtesy by saying just a little about those matters in the two Reports which are not Scottish. The right hon. Gentleman began with the question of the Financial Resolution. I am sorry to say that it seems to me that the Select Committee has rather missed an opportunity to deal with something that is fairly serious. The Committee's Report suggests that people who want to get round the financial Resolution or who want to upset it have from time to time been able to do so. New Financial Resolutions have been brought in on various occasions.
I shall not try to go into detail, because I am somewhat oppressed in conscience by the possibility that I may make a long speech at a late hour of the night. I do, however, suggest that, in practice, there are many occasions when the Financial Resolution presses very hard on the Committee stage of a debate. There are many occasions when a simple phrase, even an adjective, as I know from experience, has cut out what might have been, and probably would have been, extremely important discussions in relation to major matters in a Bill.
It does not seem to me that the argument for retaining the present practice with Financial Resolutions is based on anything very much stronger than history and formality. We should try to look at the substance of the question, and if we did that we should manage to evolve a system which would bear a little less hardly on hon. Members in Committee on Bills.
I agree with the change which is taking place in the moving of Amendments cm going into Committee of Supply on the Service Estimates. There is such general agreement on that that one need hardly comment upon it.
The numbers proposed for the quorum and Closure seem to me to be reasonable and sensible, a quorum of 12 for the smaller Committees and 15 for the larger, and the Closure numbers to equate with the quorum numbers. I am always rather sad when something takes place which seems to derive from the small attendance of Members, from the difficulty of getting Members to attend. It is an aspect of the House and its Committee's which always makes me feel depressed when I contemplate it, but it exists, and it seems to me that this change is in consonance with what will prove proper and reasonable practice.
The experience, to which the Select Committee refers, with the Sugar Bill, a short time ago, is to my mind the conclusive argument against having a number for the Closure which is high proportionately to the total membership, and I quite agree that the number for the Closure should be fixed at the same as the number for the quorum.
Another recommendation of the Select Committee, a very minor one perhaps it may seem, of which I am very glad, too,


is in connection with the Count. It has been suggested that the Clerk of a Standing Committee should not automatically draw the attention of the Chairman to the fact that the number of Members present has fallen below 15. I should have been very sorry if the practice had been changed. The House itself is always the House; it has always dignity and prestige; even if there are present, apart from the Chair, only two or three Members—it is still the House of Commons.
A Committee upstairs is a different matter. It will lose its dignity and prestige if it does not consciously and deliberately keep them up, and I should strongly dislike any inclination to ease the discipline of keeping the quorum. I am very glad that the Select Committee has reported as it has on this matter.

Mr. Blackburn: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will agree with me that the Select Committee and the Leader of the House have failed to deal with the very serious problem of the Standing Committees in relation to Private Members' Bills, the problem that it is quite possible for a whole series of Private Members' Bills to be held up because of objection in Committee to the first Bill in the series. Does my hon. Friend not think that something ought to be done about that problem?

Mr. MacPherson: I agree that it is a serious problem. I am inclined to take the point of view which has put in favour of the status quo because of the question of ordinary Parliamentary tactics. I do not take objection to parliamentary tactics being used within legitimate bounds. However, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not comment further on that, because there is a limit to the number of things one can say in a speech of reasonable length, and I hope against hope that my speech will be of reasonable length.
To have two Scottish Committees, the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Standing Committee, seems, in general, to me to be an admirable arrangement. The House, throughout its history, when it has found its time-table overloaded, its business too heavy, has generally attempted to shed some of the load by the setting up of Committees to take it over.
Here we have one of these Committees now following the same precedent. If I may put forward a point of view which perhaps sums up a general feeling, and is not intended to settle the question at issue, the Scottish Grand Committee feels that it is rather overburdened with work and that its time is overpressed. The suggestion now is that it should shed part of the work in some way to a smaller Committee. That seems to me perfectly reasonable, sensible and practical. It is, I think, the first time in the history of the House that such a thing has been done, but it seems to me none the worse for that.
I agree that the Scottish Grand Committee should include all Scottish Members. On the size of the Scottish Standing Committee, the Leader of the House raised one or two matters which will require a little consideration before all Scottish Members agree to them. I think that a small-sized Standing Committee is desirable. I am entirely in favour of a Committee with a maximum membership of about 50. Present practice is for a smaller sized Committee to deal with Private Members' Bills, and a larger Committee to deal with Government Bills.
A Committee of roughly the same size as the larger of these two types of Committee would be best suited to deal with Scottish Bills. That is what the Leader of the House proposes. He says that there will be no nucleus of Members with others being selected for the particular Bill. I agree with this. I do not know how a nucleus could conveniently be found among Scottish Members. But the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that among the Members might be a number of English and Welsh Members.
I see no real justification for that. The right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest a type of English and Welsh Member different from the type now appointed to the Scottish Committees. Those whom we tend to get now are the defenceless, largely the freshmen. I remember an hon. Member who came to the House at a by-election. On the afternoon of the day after he had been welcomed by Mr. Speaker, I met him in the Division Lobby. In the course of conversation I asked, "How are you getting on and settling down?" He replied, "I have just had a notice saying that I have to


serve on the Scottish Standing Committee. What is that?" That is the kind of hon. Member who is roped in at present.
The proposal now is that we are to have English and Welsh Members who are experts on certain subjects. I distrust this interest in experts. The presence of experts properly so-called in the House is a matter of pure chance. When we are discussing a certain subject and we find that the great expert sits in another place we do not try to drag him into our deliberation. We assume that he is not in this House and we do not use him. When a great expert on a subject does not belong to the Scottish group of Members, we should get along without him. That seems perfectly reasonable. He can give his expert knowledge to the House, while the Scottish Committee can rely on its own Scottish Members to deal with Scottish affairs.
I am sorry that the Leader of the House was inclined to be rather conservative about some of the work which it is suggested the new Scottish Grand Committee might do. The Scottish Standing Committee would deal with the Committee stage of Bills. That is clear, but I hope that, in practice, there will be a division of work and that the Bills which, to Scottish Members, are major Bills would be put into the hands of the Scottish Grand Committee for the Committee stage rather than into the hands of the Scottish Standing Committee, following the practice by which major Bills in the United Kingdom sense are not sent upstairs but are dealt with by the House as a whole. I hope that that will be the practice.
There may be, in fact there certainly will be, a number of Scottish Bills which hon. Members will feel ought to be kept before all Scottish Members. The increase in the number of days specifically for the consideration of Estimates is not an unreasonable suggestion. I find it difficult to reconcile myself to the comparatively offhand fashion in which we toss about financial responsibility without trying to keep up with it. We shift the responsibility for roads and electricity from United Kingdom Ministers to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Not only is the right hon. Gentleman responsible for policy, but also for finance, and one would have thought that the Committee should have added time to deal with that.
The comment is usually made that Estimates debates deal with policy and not with finance, but that is not completely true. A number of Estimates debates dealing with Scottish matters have gone into sufficient detail from time to time to keep track of expenditure and I should have thought there is justification for adding time for Estimates and trying to do something about this transference of financial responsibility.
On the question of Motions and other matters, I am sorry that the Leader of the House was not more ready to adopt at least the recommendation of the Committee which I consider a very minor one. A number of hon. Members have found it a rather tightly drawn recommendation, as it restricts in days and by date. These two restrictions are hardly necessary when, in point of fact, Motions would not, in the terms of its recommendation, have been sent to the Scottish Grand Committee, except on the initiative of the Government.
The restriction which seems to me serious is the one repeated by the Leader of the House on subject matter. The phrase used by the Committee and by the Leader of the House was "subjects within the administrative responsibility of the Secretary of State." That would cut out a large number of subjects which Scottish Members would wish to discuss. Almost certainly the Committee could not discuss South Uist, for example. And a great many other subjects in which Scottish Members might be strongly interested would be excluded by such a phrase.
I will give one illustration far from the ordinary hurly-burly of the day-to-day debating battle. There is a good deal of interest in certain aspects of higher education. A debate on the universities would not be out of the way. We cannot debate the universities on the Scottish Education Estimates, because they are under the Treasury. But although they are the Chancellor's responsibility, when there was last a Bill about one of the Scottish universities, it came to the Grand Committee and the Secretary of State for Scotland piloted it. I quote that as an example of a subject which is not the administrative responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman. Why not do the same sort of thing in the case of Motions, if we are to have


Motions? There should be some provision for Motions and there need be no limit on the number of days or date, because in any case, the Government can determine that, and the scope should be greatly widened.
I wish to endorse the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). The House of Commons is continually under fire from hon. Members, and critics outside, because of the pressure of business and the difficulty we experience in getting subjects discussed on the Floor of the House. Here we have a Committee system which, even though it is now only inching along, is doing something bit by bit to take over the burden of business at present borne by the House.
In this discussion a great number of hon. Members may feel strongly about the Scottish Committees in general, as they will be when they are set up if this procedure goes through, and all hon. Members will feel strongly about the House. What seems to me important in changes like these is the House far more than the Scottish Committees. It seems to me that, as my right hon. Friend suggested, the House might well devolve a number of other things to Committees in the same way. This may appear, if not an appeal from "Philip Drunk" to "Philip Sober", at least an appeal from "Philip in the House" to "Philip in Committee". But it is not a matter of the individuals concerned. The pressure is not so much the pressure on individual Members as the pressure on the House itself as an institution—the time of the House, the procedure of the House, and so on.
That would be relieved by sending matters to Committees. The pressure on Committees may become great—that is, indeed, part of what we are discussing—but the possibility seems to me to be one of the real chances of dealing effectively with the question of future procedure in general in the House.
I doubt my right hon. Friend's examples of further subjects, however. He suggested Wales and England. It seems to me that for this system to succeed—and it has succeeded in the Scottish Committees in spite of all our shortcomings; it works well—one needs

two things. One is a community of interest, interest in the sense that it goes right down to constituents, interest in the Member and in the constituent, the interest on the part of the general public on which the work of this House rests.
The other thing is Ministerial responsibility. It is because these two things exist together in the Scottish Committees that we have the concentration of interest and the real Parliamentary sense about what is being done. A Welsh Committee, I should think, would have that interest, but the difference is that it would have only half a Minister, whereas we have two Ministers—the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, plus their various satellites. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sputniks."] I do not want to argue about terminology.
I suggest that the system might be applied to groups of subjects, such as the nationalised industries. It does not seem to me out of the way to have that kind of system applied in this House to the nationalised industries. The Colonies would be another possibility. There are other suitable subjects or groups of subjects. I do not think that the analogy of Wales and England is quite the best one in respect of the actual work that Parliament does.
My general feeling about the statement by the Leader of the House is that, on the whole, I am in agreement with it, but I hope that he will be inclined, on reflection, to go a little further in the matter of things which he is willing to refer to the Scottish Grand Committee, and I hope, also, that he will stabilise rather more in the direction that I have been suggesting the membership of what will now be called the Scottish Standing Committee.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Walter Elliot: With my fellow-members of the Committee, I should like, in the first place, to thank the House for the friendly reception, on the whole, which it has given to the proposals which we put forward. There are actually two Reports here. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) referred to some of the other proposals besides the proposals for the alteration in the Scottish Grand Committee. It is right that they should be referred to,


because they are matters of considerable importance.
I think the House accepts the procedure that we suggested for going into Committee of Supply and on Financial Resolutions. I can only say that I think one must still attach great importance to the financial responsibility which is inherent in the Government. After all, the Government had to find the money for proposals which are put forward, and the fact that the charge upon the subject cannot be increased except upon the Motion of a Minister of the Crown is one of the real sheet anchors of our Parliamentary procedure, and one from which we should depart with great care and, indeed, with considerable reluctance.
The main topic which has been discussed is the proposal with regard to the Scottish Standing Committee. It is generally accepted that it would be good if every Scottish Member did not serve on every occasion in every debate on every proposal affecting Scotland. It is important that hon. Members should have the opportunity of sitting on other Committees and of serving not merely on business connected with the House outside the House, but even on business not connected with the House outside the House. I would quote in support of that suggestion no less a person than Earl Attlee, formerly Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister. He said in The Times of 11th April:
It is desirable that there should be Members whose outside activities forbid them to give whole-time service, but whose contact with outside interests brings in what might be called the non-professional outlook.
It is well worth remembering that that point of view was not put forward on behalf of a Member whose private interests were at stake, but on behalf of the House of Commons by one who had been Prime Minister and has held great and responsible posts. He was Prime Minister and was for many years Leader of the Opposition and cannot be suspected of tendencies towards wealthy men trying to make money outside the House.
Points which were brought forward seriously in discussion, and I think with general agreement, were very interesting and novel, and I am glad to find that they are receiving a great deal of support throughout the House. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) need not fear that

they will narrow the administrative responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The general activities of the Secretary of State, as Minister for Scotland, goes very wide indeed, and has been held to allow his activities being called into question for matters for which he was not immediately adminstratively responsible, but for which, as Minister for Scotland, he held a general watching brief.
There will be sufficient opportunity to debate subjects of great importance which we have not been able to discuss and which are narrowly and specifically within the right hon. Gentleman's province. I refer to matters like hydroelectricity. It is a great pity that we have not been able to debate hydroelectric schemes, because that might have obviated some of the misunderstandings which have arisen and to which a Select Committee recently made reference. It will be very useful and desirable for the Secretary of State to enable us to discuss specific matters which might enable us to cover matters past, present and to come.
These are valuable proposals in themselves, and I hope that they will commend themselves to the House as a whole. The absence of party divisions, as the House will observe by examining the lines on which divisions took place, when they did take place, enabled a very wide discussion in the Committee.
The next point to stress was our desire, as far as possible, to relieve the weight on the House. One of the reasons why we came to the recommendation which has been referred to more than once, sometimes with appreciation and sometimes not, was that the Selection Committee should have power to nominate further Members representing Scottish constituencies, to carry out fully all the wishes and to use all the special qualifications of hon. Members, and to ensure the balance of parties in accordance with that in the House of Commons. There was no sense in a proposal being passed in Committee by a weight of numbers against the Government merely to have it reversed by the weight of numbers in favour of the Government in the House. That would not diminish the work of the House but would increase it. The desire of making sure that as far as possible debate of Scottish matters by those keenly interested in them should take place


upstairs in Committee had the corollary that it meant not so great an inroad was made on the time of the House on Report stage downstairs. There is no real advantage in transferring a debate upstairs to a Committee Room to have it all over again, possibly at greater length, downstairs when the Report stage is reached.
That admittedly put a duty on the Committee of Selection, and it may well be that the Leader of the House felt uneasy about that duty. I would accept the position as set forth by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) when he said that the Selection Committee was not bound to put everyone on a Committee merely because it thought they should be there. Many of us have had a desire to be included on deputations, delegations and committees and have found that our views of our own capabilities were not fully shared by our colleagues. That experience has happened to many, and it may happen to many more Scottish Members. I hope that they will take the rough with the smooth and that if they are not on one Committee for one Bill they will feel all the more fresh, eager and ready to take part in discussion of other Bills. I have seen signs among my colleagues of hon. Members becoming jaded when they have sat on every Committee and have not been able to do themselves full justice. I think that a little rest will do them no harm at all.
I am in a position to speak with feeling on this matter. I suppose I am by far the oldest member of the Scottish Grand Committee, having a service on it which—unlikely as the House may think—runs to nearly forty years. On the whole, I think I have not shirked my service at any point there. I had the honour of being Chairman of the Committee which has made these recommendations which, it is hoped, will lead to a smaller and more efficient Scottish Committee, dealing with certain problems. It is my belief that there is no desire to stifle discussion but rather to strengthen discussion so that we in the Scottish Grand Committee can give more adequate attention to problems there and outside the Committee and can give more adequate attention to the great problems both in Committee and on the Floor of the House which require attention.
It is not enough to say that these are merely morning Committees. The feeling is that as they sit from 10.30 a.m. that is only part of the day, but it is the part of the day when one does one's reading and preparation for speeches, if we are to speak in the afternoon we cannot do so if the whole morning is taken up with the grind of the Committee system. The mornings free are not holiday mornings by any means for those who are taking an active part in this House. They are an indispensable portion of a week's work in the House. They provide time to read, time to think and time to write. All that is indispensable and is very greatly cut into if the Committee sits, as it sometimes does, week in and week out for months at a time, sometimes by no means only in the mornings, but in the afternoon and far into the night as well.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman would agree that the use of the word "day" in reference to a Sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee creates a misconception because the "day" is only two and a half hours.

Mr. Elliot: It does not create a misconception. It is the suggestion that it is only two and a half hours which creates the misconception. This cuts into the thinking period, the meditative period, the fruitful period of the day. I regard the morning as an indispensable a part of my day as any part of the 24 hours, and if my morning has been destroyed I find it difficult to make adequate use of the rest of the day. I do not withdraw this statement at all. If there is one thing which we lack in the House it is time to meditate and time to digest the mass of information which pours upon us.

Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that those who are freed from serving on the Scottish Grand Committee should not serve, as has been suggested, on the other United Kingdom Committees?

Mr. Elliot: Some of them will serve on the other United Kingdom Committees. I have had a great deal of experience of this, and I have served on other United Kingdom Committees, too. If there is a standing mortgage on one's time by which, every time the Scottish Committee sits one is summoned to attend it, that is a handicap under which no other set of Members in the House work, and it is a


handicap which I do not think it is fair should be imposed upon Scottish Members.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: It is the right hon. Gentleman's Committee.

Mr. Elliot: I do not quite understand the hon. Member. It is a House of Commons Committee. It is certainly a Committee of the House of Commons to which those hon. Members serving on it attach very great importance.

Mr. Mellish: It is a Scottish Committee.

Mr. Elliot: We are discussing the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Member must not resent our discussing it when we are here specifically to do so.
I think the danger does not come so much from the large Committee as from the undue loquacity of our people. We are a naturally garrulous and talkative race. A good deal of the work of this Report arose from the fact that there were adverse criticisms in the Press and elsewhere, as we all know, of the work of the Scottish Grand Committee. It was taking too long. It was dragging out debates on minor Bills. No one who has sat through some of the debates can deny that that was so.
I therefore think that the Scottish Grand Committee above all Grand Committees should regard the use of a time-table as part of the normal procedure of the Committee. I do not think that the night express from Euston to Glasgow or Edinburgh would be best set off by a meeting of the passengers on the platform in committee with the engine driver, deciding that when a reasonable number of passengers had assembled the train would set off. I want to know when the train will start and when it will reach its destination. Equally, I am sure that the Scottish Members will find it necessary and desirable to work much more than in the past on some timetable under which a reasonable allocation of time is made in order that we may have some reasonable conception of when the bill be brought forward, when the main points will be discussed and when it will be possible to dispose of the business. That, I think, is one of the further subjects to which we shall have to turn our attention.
The first point, however, is to deal with the proposal which we brought forward. I still stand by the Report and by a system of allowing Scottish Members to be fully represented on the Committee in accordance with their wishes and with their interests. If further reform is needed, it lies more in the direction of a timetable of discussion than an undue restriction of the number of Members who should be allowed to serve on the Committee.
Let us see how it goes. Let us begin with these proposals that have been brought forward. I think there is general agreement on most of them, and I am sure that if we get a general consensus of opinion—as, I think, is developing in this Chamber tonight—we shall make a considerable step forward to a more efficient examination of our Scottish affairs, and a more efficient working of the great institution of Parliament of which we are all so very proud.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I do not propose to deal with any of the Scottish matters that have been under discussion, but I should like to take up one or two points that were made by the Leader of the House in the earlier part of the debate. From what he said, I thought that the Government were really collecting voices in this debate, although they put positive suggestions before us to see what were our reactions.
I suggest that it would be in the interests of the House if we had special Standing Orders to deal with Private Members' Bills, because I feel that at present the House does not do full justice to the private Member. A very common criticism made of this House in foreign countries, particularly in America, is that the power of the Executive has become so great that the private Member has little or no say in the House. I think that all of us who know the House believe that he has a very considerable say, but there is enough truth in that criticism for us to take note of it.
It is particularly important, when many countries are setting up new constitutions which copy this Parliament, often in great detail, that we should put right anything that seems to be wrong, so that, to countries like Ghana and others that are setting up Parliaments and taking us as


their example, we can set a better example.
Points that I think require taking up particularly are those relating to the quorum and the Closure on Standing Committees. I was very interested to see that in a memorandum that he put before the Select Committee, the Leader of the House suggested 10 or 12 as the figure for the quorum and 12 to 15 for the Closure. He also said that he thought it desirable to bring the two figures into line, if possible. The Committee came down in favour of a quorum of 12 for the small Committee of 35, and of 15 for a Committee consisting of 45 Members.
I recognise that it is now becoming the practice for Private Members' Bills to be sent to a smaller Committee of 35 and, therefore, to lower the quorum figure to 12 is a very big advance in helping the private Member to get progress with his Bill. I would suggest, however, that it would be in the interest of the House if we wrote into the Standing Orders that a Standing Committee set up to deal with Private Members' Bills should consist of 35 Members, and that we should not just leave it to the growing practice of the House.
Secondly, I suggest that we should adopt the first suggestion of the Leader, of the House rather than that of the Committee as a whole, and make 10 rather than 12 the figure for the quorum. That should also be the figure for the Closure. I believe that, at the present time, the private Member, not having the assistance of Whip or party behind him, has very great difficulty in getting his Bill through Standing Committee.
Nearly all the important Bills that private Members bring forward are supported from both sides and opposed from both sides. In fact, the main purpose of these Bills is that they should deal with the sort of issue that cuts across party. But we all know that a small group of hon. Members, when opposed to such a Bill, can hold it up by absenting themselves from the Committee—if they get on that Standing Committee, and it is easy to do so. They can obstruct in many other ways, too.
When this matter was discussed earlier in the House it was suggested that there was a danger, if we made it too easy for

a Private Member's Bill to get through Committee, that we might have Bills pushed through which really did not represent the feeling of the House. We all know that surprises do, from time to time, take place here, but I should have thought that there was one very strong safegurad against that contingency.
Even if a Bill had had its Second Reading and had got through Committee but did not represent the opinion of the House, it could always be turned down on Third Reading. The House has that control over a Bill which does not represent the general feeling of the House. But it is difficult to mobilise opinion in favour of a Private Member's Bill if it has to do with a matter about which there is not an enormous amount of strong feeling. Therefore, I suggest that it would be better when making new Standing Orders if, first, we made special ones for Private Members' Bills and, secondly, if we made the number for the quorum and Closure for them 10 rather than 12 as suggested in the recommendations.
I support the proposal made by the Leader of the House that as far as a quorum on Standing Committees is concerned it should not be the duty of the Clerk of the Committee to draw the attention of the Chairman to the fact that the number of Members present has fallen below the permitted quorum, and that the matter should be left to a Member to raise. In other words, the practice in Standing Committees should conform to the practice of the House as a whole. In this, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). It seems to me that the present rule for Standing Committees in this respect, which is different from that for the House as a whole, is an impediment to the private Member in making progress with his Bill. I hope that the Government will follow the lines of the original suggestion of the Leader of the House rather than the recommendations of the Committee.
I would go further and ask the House to support a proposal that the Select Committee should be asked to look at one or two other matters not at the moment before the House which would, I think, improve the position of Private Members' Bills, particularly the matter of the Closure for Private Members' Bills


on Second Reading on Friday afternoons. I suggest that the present figure of 100 is much too high. I have suggested 40 as a possible figure, but it is a matter of argument. I would certainly suggest that if we are really to make the best use of private Members' time in the House it is important that the figure for the Closure on Friday afternoons should be reduced.
We should ask the Select Committee to put forward suggestions to the House—if possible, to take evidence on what has happened in the past concerning Private Members' Bills. It is a matter which ought to be further considered and on which we ought to have a further report. If that were done I believe that the rights of private Members would be fully safeguarded and private Members would be able to make a more useful contribution through their Bills to the House. At present, they are not.
I agree that if the proposals put forward by the Committee go through the position of Private Members' Bills as far as Standing Committees are concerned will be improved. But there is still the important point of the Closure on Second Reading, and on that matter I think that we ought to have further advice. I hope that the Government will ask the Select Committee to consider that matter. Private Members' Bills, if through their Second Reading, might also be carried forward to the next Session of the same Parliament.

10.34 p.m.

Major Sir Roger Conant: I feel rather brave intervening in what has really become a Scottish debate, more particularly because it is on that aspect of the Select Committee's Report that I want to speak. My excuse is that I have the honour to be Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and many of the points raised will, I believe, affect that Committee very considerably. I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the members of the Committee collectively, but I feel fairly sure that they would agree with most of what I propose to say.
The proposal in the Report is that the Scottish Standing Committee should consist of 45 members, to which are to be added other Members for Scottish constituencies and, when necessary, further Members representing English or non-

Scottish constituencies, all at the discretion of the Committee of Selection without any directive as to the numbers concerned. That proposal—and I believe it was supported by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)—would put the Committee of Selection, I believe, in an invidious position, because I think it is the wish of the House generally that the Scottish Standing Committee, as it will be called, should be reduced in numbers, and it is also the wish of the House that the desires of hon. Members should be met by the Committee of Selection in putting them upon Committees dealing with Bills in which they are interested.
Those expressions of view which the Committee of Selection will have to consider when setting up Committees may very well come into conflict with one another, as the right hon. Gentleman envisaged. One may have, in many cases, a Scottish Standing Committee of much the same dimensions as it is at present and one will not be carrying out the wish of the House, which is that the Scottish Standing Committee may be reduced to a much more practicable size and—much more important—that we should have the advantage of Scottish Members on United Kingdom Bills which concern Scotland as much as England.

Mr. Woodburn: Does not the hon. and gallant Member agree that the Committee of Selection at present has to face that problem with every English Bill of importance—on matters such as education, for example? The Committee of Selection cannot put on to the Standing Committee everybody who would like to be on it. Some hon. Members have to be excluded. The difficulty with regard to Scottish Members would be no greater than it is now. The Committee of Selection always has that discretion and that responsibility. I do not see why they should be particularly terrified of the Scots in this respect, or that they would not exercise their duty with common sense. Personally, I would be prepared to have confidence in their judgment.

Mr. Ross: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman replies to that intervention, may I ask him to answer a pertinent point? He said more than once that it would meet with the wish of the House if the size of the Scottish Grand Committee were reduced. Can he tell me when the House expressed this wish?

Sir R. Conant: I will deal with that point in a minute. At the moment, the numbers whom we have power to add are limited, in the case of United Kingdom Standing Committees, by Standing Order No. 58, to 30. I believe that we ought to have a limitation in the Scottish Standing Committee in the future. I am sure that is essential if we are to carry out our duties efficiently and meet the wishes of the House. I can only say that I believe it is the wish of the House that the Scottish Standing Committee should be reduced in numbers, and personally I think that that is right.
If it is also the wish of the House that Members who wish to serve on the Committee are to be appointed irrespective of numbers, I do not believe that the Committee will be able to carry on, particularly as the Members of the Committee of Selection are kind-hearted men who would not like to prevent Members from sitting on the Committee of their choice. In fact, we should find that the Committee would be approximately of the same dimensions as it is at present.
Of course, I am not opposed to English Members serving on the Scottish Standing Committee, particularly if they happen to be Scotsmen representing English constituencies. I think it would facilitate the duties of the Committee of Selection a great deal if we had a clear directive from the House as to the numbers of Members whom we should appoint to our Scottish Standing Committee.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I am forcibly reminded tonight of the Englishman who remarked with great glee, "Now we have the Scots where we want them." According to the logic of one hon. Member opposite, apparently the Government have the Scots where they want them tonight, because he said they were on the defensive. Like the old Celtic team, believe that the best method of defence is to attack, and I intend to do that tonight.
It is far too late to discuss fully such an important question as this. The present position, so far as I can see, having looked all round the problem, works better than many of the suggestions put forward by the amateurs. For instance, we have never resorted to the filibuster, and if we have sometimes taken what is termed a long time to do

anything it has been simply to carry out our duties to our constituents. The Scottish Committee is different from almost every other Committee in the House. It is elected by the electors in the constituencies in Scotland to come here and represent their interest. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Member had better come up to Midlothian and find out.
We believe that the present suggestions would not tend to improve our work. The real reason for this discussion tonight has not yet been uncovered. It is perfectly true that it emanated from a few disgruntled people on the Government side of the House. A Division on it was forced and the then Secretary of State for Scotland was saved only by the support of Labour Members in the Committee. Until now, we have never got the real reason. It emanated from a few who wanted to make a little "on the side". They were quite willing to work all right, but not for their constituents. They wanted to do it for themselves. This is a wages question.
The reasons advanced by the Leader of the House are almost laughable in the extreme. For instance, we were told that we were gathered here tonight because the Scottish Committee was overworked. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to give us another couple of mornings to aggravate the position. If that were the reason, why should we get another couple of days? Is it not true to say that it was quite simple for Scottish Members to be on two Committees upstairs at the same time? [An HON. MEMBER: "We were under a Labour Government."] And under a Tory Government too, very recently.

Mr. John Mackie: The hon. Member will remember very well that during the period of the Socialist Government, with overriding powers, from 1945 to 1950, hon. Members were often placed in the position of having to serve not merely on the Scottish Committee, but on one or two of the other Standing Committees of the House. If the hon. Member's memory serves him sufficiently well, he will remember that.

Mr. Pryde: Too well I remember. I remember, also, the times when that Labour Government took on a job with which nothing else in history was comparable. There was nothing in the kitty. It had been all blasted away, and the


Labour Government rehabilitated the country as it had never been taken care of before. Yes, we remember.
I want to devote myself to the reasons advanced by the Leader of the House. We were told that we were overworked. The right hon. Gentleman is bound to remember how, in quite recent times, for six months in the year the Scottish Committee never met at all.

Mr. Mackie: In 1950, for example?

Mr. Pryde: Later than that. I suppose that Conservative Members would be free to work for their own interests. Do they want to hark back to that time? Would they not be better off if they stayed in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, or Glasgow, and allowed us to send their money on to them?

Mr. Ross: It is London where they want to stay.

Mr. Pryde: They are not entitled to stand for election at all if they do not intend to come here and carry out their duties to their constituents.
The proposals which have been made will not do anything to improve Scottish representation. The Leader of the House said that we were overworked. If we are overworked, that is a wages question. I hope that we shall get the right hon. Gentleman's support when we put forward a claim in that direction.
I suggest that we have not yet had a logical reason for interfering with the Scottish Committee.

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend talks of the Scottish Members being overworked. I have before me a Return relating to the Scottish Standing Committee's work for the Session 1956 to 1957, and I find that the Committee then considered only one Bill and held 20 sittings. What is all this about the Scotsmen working hard?

Mr. Pryde: Without wasting any more time, let us ask the Government to do what they should have done a long time ago—place the question before the electorate in Scotland and allow the electorate to decide what is to be done. To reduce the number of Scottish Members to 45 will mean simply that some of the Members elected in Scotland will not be able to carry out their duties on behalf of their constituents.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. James Stuart: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot), naturally, supported the Report in full, and it was, of course, right and proper he should have done so. I am sure he will not mind if I make bold to differ from him on one or two matters. I was not a member of the Select Committee, though I had the honour of giving evidence before it. I also claim, like my right hon. Friend, to have been a member of the Scottish Standing or Grand Committee for a considerable time, having been a member of it for an unbroken period of thirty-four years. I am not going into the question of my attendance, which may have varied a little from time to time. If an hon. Member wants to go into that with the record, I would say that I have the record here, too.
I shall not dwell upon the Select Committee's proposals, with which there seems to be general agreement, because it is getting too late and there is no point in elaborating upon those agreed proposals. I am in full agreement with the suggestions relating to going into Committee of Supply and to the numbers for a quorum and a count. There are, however, three matters with which I should like to deal, two of them with great brevity, I hope.
The first is the question of sending affirmative Resolutions to the Scottish Grand Committee. I would say at once that I am in full agreement that it should be the full Committee to consider Bills at Second Reading stage and also Estimates: it should be the Grand Committee which should consider those. The Standing Committee to consider Bills in Committee would be a smaller Committee.
I return to the affirmative Resolutions. The Leader of the House said that it would make almost no difference to adopt this proposal. I should prefer to say that it would make little difference, if any, but it would mean the same thing. I do not, for that reason, see any real necessity to adopt this. I confess to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and to the House, that I am doubtful about the constitutional wisdom of giving the right finally to decide matters of this nature to a Committee of the House sitting upstairs. It is quite a different matter with the Committee stage of a Bill which comes back to the House for Report and


Third Reading. As to the six sittings—and I will call them sittings to avoid arguments about days and nights—dealing with Scottish Estimates upstairs, we do not vote on those Estimates. They are reported back to the House and a decision is taken by the House.
I confess that I am doubtful about the wisdom of this proposal. If it is the case that it will make almost no difference, again to quote the Leader of the House, I am still more doubtful about the wisdom of adopting it. My mind is carried back to the old Bairnsfather cartoon of the First World War and the caption, "If you knows a better 'ole go to it." If it is a case of, "You don't knows a better 'ole" there is no point in moving from where we are.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. He will find from the Select Committee's Report that an affirmative Resloution would be treated in exactly the same way as a Second Reading. In other words, no decision would be taken by the Committee, but, for convenience, the Resolution would be remitted for consideration upstairs. If there were to be a vote the Resolution would be sent to the House. If there were an affirmative Resolution on which it was known there would have to be a vote, neither the Government nor the Opposition would allow it to go upstairs.

Mr. Stuart: I apologise. I had not understood that point.

Mr. Ross: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the point was put to him in the Select Committee he said that he had no fundamental objection to it?

Mr. Stuart: That is perfectly true. I have read the evidence more than once, but I must say in my defence that I had not considered the point when it was put to me in the Select Committee. I had no idea that it would be put to me. I have thought about it since, and I am now giving the House the benefit of my long and mature consideration.
As to additional days for the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss Motions, as suggested—or Estimates—having left the Scottish Office only at the beginning of this year, I think that the Secretary of

State for Scotland is rather hard put to it as it is with these debates. There are other sittings on the Committee stages of Bills. It is now sugested that two more days should be added to the six which themselves are an innovation dating back only to 1948. We have two days on the Floor of this Chamber to deal with Estimates and, in addition, there come before us in this Chamber Estimates covering the whole of the United Kingdom, which Scottish Members are fully entitled to debate if they are called by the Chair. I believe that those Estimates number 25 altogether.
I feel, therefore, that there is a great deal going on. The travelling, the Committee work and the Cabinet meetings and other meetings which the Secretary of State has to attend make a very heavy burden. I am not ruling out all this as impossible, of course, but I suggest to the House that there are already a good many opportunities, when we take into consideration the six additional sittings upstairs which were instituted by right hon. Members opposite in 1948.
On the question of the size of the Standing Committee for dealing with Bills, I have long thought that it would be for the better working of the Committee if it did not consist of all Scottish Members. One reason is that Scottish Members can hold other offices outside the Scottish Office and it is very difficult to get a majority in the Standing Committee in the event of a repetition of the narrow majorities which both sides of the House have experienced in recent years.
In the First World War, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who. I am surprised to notice, is not listening to this debate, was holding office as First Lord of the Admiralty. I cannot believe that he took much part in the work of the Scottish Standing Committee of that time. Probably the same would apply to Sir Robert Horne, who represented a Glasgow constituency and was Chancellor of the Exchequer and Minister of Labour, and to Mr. Asquith and Mr. Bonar Law. I myself was Chief Whip at one time and I do not think that the present Chief Whip would find it very convenient were he also a permanent member of a Standing Committee.
My strongest argument, which I stated before the Select Committee, and have


always believed, is that the Scottish Members should be free not only for such other work as was referred to by Lord Attlee and my right hon. Friend, but also to serve on other Committees dealing with Bills of United Kingdom application. There are many such Bills and I do not want to delay the House with examples. To have to run down the passage to vote in one room when one is trying to speak in another is not common sense or good management of business. I believe that the smaller Committee which I would model on the existing Committees would be the most efficient. We know that they would work because the existing Committees have been working for years, and, therefore, that seems to me as good a model as any.

10.57 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I will be brief because, clearly, with such a short experience as a Member of this House I can have little to say. I cannot follow the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) in his criticism of the position of Ministers who are members of the Standing Committee by virtue of representing Scottish constituencies, and the conflict between carrying out their Parliamentary duties or honouring the Committee with their presence. I will leave that for other hon. Members who may be able to work out a comment.
To me, there seems to be a considerable amount of pairing in the Scottish Grand Committee. Looking at the attendance figures in the recent White Paper, I think I can boldly, and, I hope, rightly, say that we have about a 50 per cent. attendance at the sittings of the Committee. That means that half the Members have been absenting themselves, no doubt for legitimate reasons, which reduces the Committee of about 90 members to a working number of about 45 which, I understand, is the proposal in the Report of the Select Committee. The charge I have heard is that the Committee is talkative and garrulous, because there are far too many members. I do not think that that follows. It may well be a reflection on certain hon. Members rather than on the numbers.
The proposal here is weak on two counts. First, it says that full account will be taken of the individual wishes and special qualifications of Members, which seems to imply, as the hon. Member for

Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) mentioned, that we can all apply and be considered for membership. I suggest that there are some of us who, for obvious reasons, will be disappointed by not being selected. Otherwise, the proposal is meaningless. If there are hon. Members who will be disappointed, surely that is unfortunate, because the present position is that Members who want to participate have the initial right in other words, to contract out by pairing. Under this proposal, they would have to find ways and means of contracting in. The power of contracting in will be delineated by whatever Standing Order is moved by the Government in respect of the views of the house as expressed in this debate.
I take it from what I have heard that the Standing Order will be difficult to frame to meet the very imprecise, perhaps pious hopes of the Committee as contained in that sentence. It is on that sentence that the issue depends. Are we simply looking at our present composition, criticising it rather severely, and imagining that this reform, if it is a reform, will be much better? I suggest that if there are to be 45 of us on the Committee, the 45 will be expected to work. If all that the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) has said is true, that we want to have time to do four things apart from being in the Scottish Committee—to meditate, amounting almost to Parliament by yoga, to attend other Committees, to attend to business in the House, and to attend to to business outside the House—I take it that the 45 will do a job of work, and if that is so, we are likely to have a lot more talking in the Scottish Standing Committee.
Suppose my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) were excluded from the Committee, but were anxious to be a member of it. If I were a member of it he might urge me to attend regularly and put certain matters to it. In other words, under the stimulus of having a reduced Committee its members would have to carry the briefs of other hon. Members.
Some may say that that applies to United Kingdom Committees, but the position is not quite the same. We are having something taken from us which, in the case of the other Committees, has


already gone, so the same criticism cannot be raised there. In other words, Scottish Members now have a right to raise in the Scottish Grand Committee anything that they consider pertinent to their constituencies. Take roads, for example. What hon. Member could opt out of the discussion in Committee of a Bill dealing with roads and say, "It does not concern my constituency. I will leave it to another Member"? That applies to many other subjects.
The Leader of the House said that since April the Secretary of State for Scotland has had to carry a heavier burden of work and a greater responsibility for other Departments. That was an argument not to justify a smaller Committee, but for all hon. Members being able to attend the Committee. It seems to me that the suggestion is defective because it merely adds an irritant to the existing situation. What is the point of the proposal? Is it to release yet more hon. Members from attendance? Does it mean that there will be fewer than half the Scottish Members attending a Scottish Committee stage? That would seem to be the proposal, working it out numerically on the basis of past attendances at the Scottish Grand Committee with the full 90-member strength.
My other comment is about Questions. I sympathise very much with the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). Since the change in the amount of work of the Secretary of State, in April, there has also been a reduction in the number of Scottish Questions asked in the House. It may be argued that Scottish Members previously did not ask enough Questions to justify their having two days, but now we have only one day out of seven, in effect. Yet we have more matters to raise in Questions. The point put by my hon. Friend, which was submitted in the Memorandum but was not dealt with in the Report—of having Questions in Committee—seems to be sound and reasonable. There are certain Questions which I agree should not be taken in Committee, because on the Floor of the House they have a publicity value bringing the attention of the nation, possibly, to a mistake or misdemeanour. That is important.
Scottish hon. Members could, however, have the option of deciding whether they

were willing to press some Questions in Standing Committee rather than on the Floor of the House, and I do not see why it is necessary to regard Questions in Committee as mutually exclusive of Questions on the Floor of the House. Possibly my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire will be able to press this matter further. I raised it because I thought that it might be neglected in the debate if he were not called.
I cannot see the advantage of reducing the size of the Committee. If we do so it will be an irritant in the future. I think that Scottish hon. Members on both sides of the House will complain that they have been unfairly excluded from the Committee when it is dealing with these matters, and their constituents will wonder about it, as many wondered about the discussions of the Rent Bill. It was a United Kingdom Measure, but about 62 Scots were excluded. The Glasgow Members, in particular, who did not serve on that Committee, wish very much that they had been on that Committee so that they could have put forward points which they are now putting to the Ministers—active points of legislation which do not go beyond the basic premise of the Bill. It is a great pity that that Bill was not taken in full Scottish Grand Committee so that every Scottish voice could have been raised at the appropriate time against or for the Bill.

11.7 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: At this time of the night I do not intend to speak for long, but I want to support the Government in the recommendation which they have made.
The Committee made three recommendations affecting Scotland. The first is that affirmative orders should be debatable in the Scottish Grand Committee. This is dealt with in page 6 of the Report. I very much doubt whether that is a good idea. First, there must be extraordinarily few of these Orders which apply only to Scotland; probably there have been one or two, but I do not recall them. I am opposed to change for the sake of change, and we should not make a change unless there is some point in it.
Moreover, I do not like the idea of the Government having the right to put down a Motion to refer such an Order to the Scottish Grand Committee. Either


the Order should be sent to the Committee or it should not. Presumably that Motion would itself be debatable, and the procedure would, therefore, waste time. In view of the remote chance of there being frequent discussions, it seems to me better to leave well alone.
The second recommendation concerns the extra two days' debate. I am not sure what the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) had in mind about this. He talked about debating Motions on all eight days—that is, the six days on Estimates and the two extra days. I think there is something to be said for the proposition which the Labour Party Group put forward to the Committee, that we should have Motions in the early part of the Session to discuss matters of Scottish interest which come within the administrative sphere of the Secretary of Slate for Scotland. We must remember that at that time of the year the Estimates have not usually been published, and that we cannot, therefore, discuss the Estimates.

Mr. T. Fraser: May I explain what my right hon. Friend had in mind? He had in mind the possibility of the Scottish Grand Committee taking the Estimates formally and going on to debate a Motion, as we do in the House. We got into difficulty last year when hon. Members on both sides wanted a debate on tourism but the Committee Clerks were in some difficulty about our being in order.

Sir J. Duncan: I see the point, but the difficulty about the two days in the early part of the year is that there will then be no Estimates, because they will not have been published. There will, therefore, have to be some other method of putting Motions down. The right hon. Gentleman was not very clear, nor is the Report of the Committee itself, as to what sort of Motion would be put down. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would like to clear up that point now?

Mr. Woodburn: The suggestion was to have two extra days for Estimates. The other point was that already there is great trouble at the end of the Session, when legislation is coming to the top, in getting the six days fitted in. Therefore, to avoid those two difficulties, the idea was adopted that was adopted on the recom-

mendation of the Whips this year, that, instead of Scottish business being discussed purely with reference to Estimates and Votes, a Motion might be taken which would enable them to be discussed at a different time of the year. All I was suggesting was that since that had been adopted for the Estimates this year, we might, instead of having two Standing Orders, make it eight days, debatable in a similar way.

Sir J. Duncan: What has been happening up to now is that we have supposedly debated the Estimates on the six days, but what, in fact, we have discussed have been the Reports of the Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture and the rest for the previous year. Which is right?
One of the criticisms that I have of the House of Commons set-up is that we Members are completely without control of finance. If we are to try to regain that control of finance we should discuss the Estimates much more than the Reports of the previous year. We should criticise them, and examine them here and there, in Scottish Grand Committee, to see that the Government—whichever Government are in power—run Scotland efficiently.
I would rather not have one Standing Order only for Motions. I would like to leave it open, and have an alternative method of dealing with this. As I say, we cannot, on the two early days, deal with the Estimates. I would like to leave it open on the other days, because I think that we should try to get hold of Scottish finance better than we have done in the past. That deals with the two extra days.
As to the Scottish Standing Committee, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson), who called it an admirable arrangement. I would like to support that from my own personal experience. Last year, I was sitting in Committee on a Bill which was of great interest to agriculture in Scotland, and particularly to agricultural workers—the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Bill. It was a United Kingdom Measure.
At the same time, the Scottish Grand Committee continued to meet, sometimes even in the afternoons, and it really was impossible for me to try to devote my time to running along the passage between Rooms 14 and 10. One could not concentrate on either job, and made a mess of both. It has been suggested that


a Member should pair, but I do not like pairing on those occasions. I do not think that it is a Parliamentary practice to be generally encouraged. If we are on a Committee we should not try to avoid any of our responsibilities, but should do our duty. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mahon) has said that if we are on a Committee we should do the work of that Committee, and I agree.
On the other hand, I think that the corollary of that is that we should legitimately be allowed to get off. At the moment, one can be required to attend the Scottish Grand Committee on 53 or 56 days. It really is an intolerable burden on the person who wishes to take an interest in United Kingdom legislation. That affects Scotland and Scottish people. From my personal experience, I welcome this idea of splitting and reducing the size of the Scottish Grand Committee, leaving some of us able to act in other directions; but I speak from personal experience.
There are other opinions, and there are other right hon. and hon. Members; and I would mention the position of Scottish Ministers who speak on United Kingdom matters, and United Kingdom Ministers who have to deal with Scottish interests. It is not possible, in my view, for a Minister at, say, the War Office, to spend morning after morning dealing with purely Scottish matters.
Then there is the case of the Minister at the Scottish Office who has to spend his time sitting with a Committee handling a Scottish Bill when he knows he should be dealing with matters at the Scottish Office. There is a Scottish Minister sitting with me on the Slaughterhouses Bill, but we both are also supposed to be in Westminster Hall dealing with the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill. We are automatically supposed to be there under our present arrangements. Here, surely, is a case where a Minister ought to be allowed off to attend to a Scottish Bill.
I have put these views to the House as being just some instances where I would welcome the change proposed by the Government and because I support the idea of reducing the Grand Committee to something in the region of 30 or 50 members.

Mr. Lawson: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that he was very successful

in getting off the Scottish Grand Committee on 18 occasions out of 34?

Sir J. Duncan: If the hon. Member wishes to know, the explanation is that it was because of illness.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am sorry that I should be rising at so late an hour, but I cannot go much further than that by way of apology because, as a Scottish Member and as one who thinks that this matter is of vital importance even though the hour be so late, I say that this subject merits the fullest discussion and voicing of opinion.
I think that it is absolutely necessary for us to get back to the beginning of this matter. We are dealing with the Report of a Committee on Procedure which was set up to inquire into a variety of matters; matters relating to how we shall discuss the Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force, and even something in relation to Money Resolutions; something in relation to the Standing Orders regarding public expenditure of public money, and even the question of Closures in Committee. Then, towards the end of the terms of reference of this Committee, there was something which, I submit, is much more important and very different from all these other things.
I want to remind the House that when this matter was included in these terms of reference the Leader of the House was told by some of us on this side that it was not considered to be right that a matter of this importance should be lumped along with other things and sent to this particular Committee. That was not deprecation of the quality of that Committee, but rather a reduction in importance of a matter which we in Scotland hold constitutionally as of considerable importance.
I have personal experience of the Committee in that I appeared before it to give evidence and to support an objection put forward by Scottish Labour Members of the House. We spent two days before the Committee. We were subjected to very thorough though friendly investigations, and if the Committee had been given this job alone to do I would never have raised the matter originally in the form of an objection.
That takes us to the genesis of the matter. How did it come about, after over fifty years' experience of the Scottish Grand Committee and Scottish


Standing Committee, that this matter was suddenly raised? Of course, we really have no right at present to call it the Scottish Grand Committee. It is the Scottish Standing Committee, It is the one remaining relic, quantitatively, of the old Grand Committees established before the beginning of the present century. It more or less, I think, continues a title which we in Scotland rather cherish.
There have been reviews of the standing of the House in relation to Committees. There were reviews in 1906, 1919 and in other years before the war. There was a review in 1945, in which you yourself, Mr. Speaker, took a considerable part, and I hope before I finish to quote some of your remarks on that occasion. There was another review in 1948. On not a single occasion—and remember that all these circumstances about which we have spoken tonight existed then—did we hear about the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) having to sacrifice himself in the Scottish Grand Committee when he was First Lord of the Admiralty in the First World War. The right hon. Gentleman never sought to do anything to destroy the nature of the Committee as a result of his experience.
We heard something about Sir Robert Home and others. But none of these people was prevented from carrying out his duties responsibly as a result of his automatic enrolment on the Scottish Grand Committee. Certainly, none of them suggested at any time publicly in the House that the Scottish Grand Committee should be reduced to the same status and size as any other Committee of the House. In fact, the result of our last review in 1948 was to give the Committee more work. The leading spokesman of the Government at that time, now Lord Reid, said it was right that more work should be given to the Scottish Grand Committee. As more responsibility was taken by Scottish Departments, there should be more opportunity for discussion.
I do not remember the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) reminding us at that time that they required these six mornings for meditation and study and for the reading of books. Indeed, they read them. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) will bear me out when I say that on one occasion we had

to express some surprise that certain hon. Members opposite were carrying out their meditation and their reading of books while the Committee was sitting.
The fact is that on not one of these occasions was there any effort made to complain about hardships and miseries of the Scottish Grand Committee. Indeed, an entirely false picture has been painted of the Scottish Grand Commitee, whether it be in Westminster Hall, or Room 14, or Room 10, as if we have some strange gathering of the clans, performing barbarous rites in an unknown language, with the Members imprisoned and refused any opportunity of getting a breath of London's smog. The facts do not bear out this picture.
We have been told about 1955 and 1956 We sat on about 50 mornings. How many times do we as a Scottish Committee carry through the job of reviewing the whole valuation and rating system in Scotland? It had been over 100 years since a Bill of that character had been introduced in this House. Every Member opposite, and most of all the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), who piloted the Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Bill through with his customary skill and wisdom, will recognise that it will probably be another 100 years before we get another Bill of that magnitude—and that was a Bill in which every Scottish Member wished to participate.
It was exactly a year ago that this matter was sprung upon us. It was never raised in the House by anyone. It was on 9th November, 1956, that the terms of reference were made public. What about the Scottish Grand Committee? The Session started, as usual, in October. The Scottish Grand Committee did not meet. It did not meet in November, or December, or January or February. It did not meet until late in the month of March. Where is the overburdening, the lack of time for meditation there? [Interruption]. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) is repeating the "speech" that he made in one of our last debates in the Scottish Grand Committee.
It is only fair to point out that not only did we not meet on every available date. We met very seldom last year. But what happens when we do meet? There are 71 Scottish representatives and there is power to add from 10 to 15, I believe, making a total of about 85. Can anyone


in the House remember when there were 85 Members there? Everyone knows quite well that what happens is that for their own convenience and to suit their other work, related to the importance of the day's work in the Scottish Grand Committee, Members make their own arrangements. Although there may be an average attendance of 45 to 50, it does not mean that it is the same 45 to 50 on the Committee every day. They may well change according to the interests of hon. Members in relation to the Bill.
Taking it all in all, hon. Members for Scottish constituencies have exercised their right to be there at the time that it has been important to them and to their constituents. It is that right which has not been interfered with throughout this whole century and it is that right that we must cherish.
We have had one speech today which seemed to agree with the Government, and I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs. When someone interrupted him he said that the Scottish business works. We have two things to consider: the changes suggested by the Select Committee and the wishes or feelings of the Government in relation to those changes. Is it suggested that this thing that works, that preserves a right which has been maintained by generations of Parliamentarians, should be changed in order to get greater efficiency, or what?
As far as I can see, there have always been two suggestions, and two only, in relation to the working of the Committee. The first is that a smaller Committee would be easier to handle. That suggestion was made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his evidence before the Committee and it was made also by the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn before the Committee. The second suggestion is that Members will be allowed to play their full part in other United Kingdom Measures.
There has been no complaint at any time that the Scottish Committee has stopped Members playing their full part, until very recently. In fact, evidence to that effect was given by the then Secretary of State, who was responsible for the establishment of the Committee. At Question 626, the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn):

Mr. Stuart has been a member of the Scottish Grand Committee for far longer than I have. Has he any recollection, up to the last year or two, of anybody objecting to every member of a Scottish constituency being automatically a member of the Scottish Grand Committee?".
The answer was:
No, I do not know of that.
We are entitled—

Sir J. Duncan: Will the hon. Member turn to page 22 of the Second Report, in which the Chairman reports that I myself made representations to the Chairman about the inconvenience that I was suffering at the time?

Mr. Ross: I am talking about a man who tonight proclaimed that he had more experience of the working of the Scottish Grand Committee than anyone else and that he had been there for thirty-four years. If the hon. Member is suggesting that 20 to 28 people should be denied the right, which at present they have, of serving in the Scottish Committee in order to allow him, and him only, a certain measure of freedom, whether to attend to Committees in the House or outside, then he is asking a little bit much. He is asking us to change something which has gone on for over fifty years and to deny to future Scottish Members of Parliament something which we had when we started as Members of Parliament, all because of something that he has not been able properly to do and because he cannot divide his time between two Committees.
The right hon. Gentleman was unfortunate in his selection of examples tonight, when he told us a harrowing tale about the Under-Secretary who had to attend to the Slaughterhouses Bill at the time when another Government Measure was in progress. It was the Government who put both of these Measures to the Committees. The Scottish Department is responsible in full for one Measure and in part for another. The failure, therefore, is not something intrinsic in the nature of the Scottish Committee, but in the mishandling of business by the Government.
In any case, even if the suggestions of the Leader of the House are accepted by the House, that state of affairs will still persist. The Scottish Committee will be dealing with the principle of a Bill on Second Reading, and that position will continue. The right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, unfortunate in his gathering of examples.

Sir J. Duncan: I said that.

Mr. Ross: I want to deal with the reason put forward as the main one for the proposal. It is that we shall be able to play our full part on United Kingdom Bills. That presupposes, first, that the Scottish Grand Committee is always sitting. It is only if the Scottish Grand Committee is always sitting that hon. Members will be debarred from taking part in consideration of United Kingdom Bills. I have already shown that there are times in the year when it is not sitting at all.
Secondly, it presupposes that when it is sitting there is always an important United Kingdom Bill. That is not true. At present, there are, or have been, two United Kingdom Bills. Scottish Members have played their full part in consideration of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill without loss of their rights in the Scottish Grand Committee. There is the Slaughterhouses Bill. I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman could not leave the Committee on that Bill, which is non-controversial.

Sir J. Duncan: Do not believe it.

Mr. Ross: It was not voted on in the House, and it is not controversial in the party sense, though it may be in other ways. However, the hon. and gallant Gentleman could have left the Committee to have given us in the Scottish Grand Committee the benefit of his views.
When Bills are debated on Second Reading in the House, Members do not sit all day in the House. It is not demanded that they sit all day in a Committee. They make their speeches to have them printed and then depart. It is unfair to suggest the same does not happen in Standing Committee.
As to the question of Members being overburdened, let us remember that there are many who are on Committees which sit in the afternoons. The Government are not concerned to bring proposals to deal with that problem. There are the Select Committees on Public Accounts, on Estimates, on Standing Orders, on Selection, and on Obscene Publications. Members on those Committees, which sit in the afternoons, are deprived of opportunities of participating fully in the work on the Floor of the House. There is a lot of humbug about this trumped up reason for this proposal.
If a Bill is of major and comprehensive importance it is not dealt with in Standing Committee, but on the Floor of this Chamber, so that Scottish Members have their full chance of participating in consideration of such a Bill. If a Bill is not important it makes little demand on Members in the Scottish Standing Committee, even if it is meeting, and, as I have pointed out, it is not always meeting. Certainly, the demands on Members' time are not so great as to merit the exclusion of 27 Members who are desperately anxious to speak on Bills in Committee. The Scots have been able to play their full part in Committees without inconvenience and have done all this work for many years.
Let us get to the bottom of the reason for the proposal. It is not to allow Members to play their full part in the House. It is to enable Members to give full attention to matters outside the House.
I heard the point raised by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove about spending mornings outside the House. If every hon. Member did that the work of the House of Commons would collapse. We have to recognise that we should not deprive hon. Members of existing rights which they cherish in order to allow full freedom to others to earn a living outside the House. Many hon. Members do not want to come here at all in the mornings. I can only give the answer given by the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn, that if that is how they feel they should not be in the House at all.
As to the suggestion that a smaller number would make the Scottish Committees easier to handle, the fact is that attendance at the Scottish Standing Committee never reaches a high proportion of the present maximum and the Committee is least manageable when there are few Members present. I can remember an occasion in the last Parliament when I and five of my colleagues had the glorious privilege of engaging in debate hon. Members opposite who were members of the Scottish Grand Committee from about midnight until noon the next day. The fact that there were only six of us made no difference. We were not more manageable. We were determined to have a full discussion on Scottish matters and we were very successful. We won many concessions from the Government that night. I also remember an


occasion when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) spoke for a whole sitting and part of the next. There is no refuge in smallness of Committees in order to get efficiency and speed.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the Labour Government brought in Standing Orders to reduce membership of Standing Committees from 85 to 50, you had something to say. You moved an Amendment suggesting that that should not be done. You were seconded by an hon. Member who was a member of this Select Committee and who would have cut down the number, because he voted against the main proposal which was finally recommended. He was the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). You had only one supporter in the debate on that occasion, namely, the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart), who, until recently, was Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
You said that this would mean that Bills of greater range and scope would go to Committee upstairs, and it was necessary that the size and universality of the Committee should be capable of bearing the burden to be put upon it. You added that those who advocated the proposal were
…asking the great bulk of M.P.s to abrogate their functions of discussing Bills in Committee and I am sure that the end of that procedure will be worse for Parliament than its beginning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2406.]
That is equally true of the Scottish Grand Committee, if the Government are asking us to abrogate our right of discussion in the House. But Parliament seldom gives up its rights.
I express my gratitude to the Select Committee for what it did in relation to some other matters, although I do not entirely agree with some of its findings in relation to negatived Motions. It could have accepted not only two additional days to debate Motions but have given additional days to debate Estimates, because I agree with the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) that we should debate them as Estimates in relation to financial Measures. I believe that a definite number of days should not be laid down, but that the expression should be "no fewer than six days."
The reason why we debate this more or less in Reports is that we are

denied other opportunities. There is no constitutional or administrative reason which could not be got round to enable us to debate additional Motions when the Scottish Grand Committee is not engaged in discussing legislation or Estimates. I think that the Select Committee made an honest effort to find a compromise to link up the historic rights of the Scottish Members with the feeling of the need to spread the load. I came to this debate in a spirit of conciliation, prepared to accept that, and I regret that the Government have turned it down.
The right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove said that the Press sometimes plays a part in giving information about what happens in this House. I was interested to read in the Evening Dispatch recently:
Scottish Tory M.P.s have been strongly opposed to this idea"—
that is, the idea which the Committee has sponsored, of giving Scottish Members the right, if they feel it important, to get on to the Committee—
on the ground that it would give the Opposition the chance to 'opt' on to the Committee in large numbers and thus frustrate the Government's plan. Government back benchers have told the Scottish Secretary"—
this is how business is done, evidently—
Mr. John Maclay, and Mr. Butler, at private meetings, that they would not support the adoption of this proposal.
They insist on selling the pass and giving up rights of considerable value to Scottish Members of Parliament, and to gain little from it in the way of freedom for meditation. In one breath we are told that is the reason for it and in the next they have to go on more United Kingdom Committees so as to get speed and efficiency. Such things are not obtained by small numbers, and if that is what is wanted the right number for the Committee would be one.
Parliament seldom gives up the rights of private Members on arguments based either on temporary advantage or to suit the convenience of the Executive. Temporary excess of business should not be used, and seldom has been allowed, to lead to the permanent restriction of full discussion. Any rights of discussion given up are seldom won back. We have a tradition of resisting new measures of restraint upon the freedom of hon. Members until that has been proved necessary, not when we read about it in the Press.
The fact is that the Scottish Committee has worked, that no private Member has


felt is necessary, during past discussions, when pressure of business was greater than today, to complain publicly and to urge remedies. That shows the need for change is neither apparent nor proved. The fact that the Select Committee sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to bring a compromise to the Government proves that we would do well to leave matters alone.
When we discussed Standing Orders, in 1948, the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove, said, with reference to the loss of two Supply Days and those hon. Members who supported the reduction of rights at that time:
I think that they are abdicating their position, and abdicating rights which are not theirs to give away. It is not within the discretion of the Private Members of today to give away rights which have been won for them by Private Members in generations past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1669.]
Those words are very true. We are not only, as it may well be, making things convenient for ourselves in cutting down the Scottish Grand Committee, but are denying a right which has belonged, to Scottish Members since the inception of the Grand Committee idea in the last century, and denying it not only to ourselves but to future Scottish Members.
I regret that the Government have seen fit to be so churlish and off-hand about the suggestion by the Select Committee. They have not moved an inch from the original proposal put forward by the Leader of the House at the start. There is still time for the Government to think again, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will impress upon the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State, in the same way as those who think otherwise, that it would be far better to accept the compromise put forward by the Select Committee.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: Much of the Select Committee's Report deals with other than Scottish matters, and a word should be said from that aspect.
I will not venture far into Scottish affairs, but I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) refer to tears for non-Scottish Members who were forced to serve on the Scottish Grand Committee.

In my only sad experience—the right hon. Gentleman says it is the penalty for being a new Member of the House—of the all-night sitting I got no tears of sympathy from Scottish Members, but had bricks—some were very dirty ones—thrown at me.
I strongly oppose any suggestion to reduce the quorum for Standing Committees to 12, or even 10, as has been suggested. It would be a retrograde step. It is said that it would facilitate Private Members' Bills. I feel that it would be a sad thing if the House agreed to as small a number as 10 to serve on the Standing Committee for any Bill, and particularly a Private Member's Bill, which needs more careful consideration than other Bills.
Private Members' Bills—I remember one going through on the nod on a Friday when few hon. Members were present—need most careful consideration in Standing Committee. Yet it is suggested—fortunately, by only one hon. Member—that the quorum for Standing Committees dealing with Private Members' Bills should go down to 10. All the hon. Members to whom I have spoken would prefer not to alter the present quorum, believing it is low enough for Private Members' Bills. Many of my hon. Friends have expressed that opinion.
I do not think that Private Members' Bills should receive any more consideration than they receive now. Considerable effort is made to help private Members to get Bills through if the Bills are of any use to the nation. Contrary to everything said by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), I hope that the present quorum will not be changed. It is quite low enough if we are to put any Bill through Standing Committee in a decent state to be returned to the House for Third Reading.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I do not intend to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) because, frankly, I think that the recommendation about the quorum and the Closure is satisfactory and it does not trouble me nearly as much as other aspects of the Report.

Mr. William Hannan: Perhaps my hon. Friend does not realise that a possible reason for the hon. Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden)


wanting a higher figure arises from the fact that he and some of his hon. Friends killed a Bill which was supported by local authorities.

Mr. Rankin: I said that I should not follow his argument because, to me, it is not of comparable significance with the other aspect of the Report, which concerns Scottish Members.
I think it has been made perfectly clear today that the Government have taken the decision to reduce the number of members who serve on the Scottish Standing Committee. We know that for a long time there were grumbles from Scottish and English hon. Members opposite who served on that Committee. Often their sole purpose in going to Room 14 was to find whether they could get a pair for the day, if not for the week or the month, or for an indefinite period. That seemed to be their chief object in life. It is clear that pressure has been brought to bear by the Conservative Party on the Government to do something about it, and the Government have decided to do something drastic.
To achieve their aim they utilised the Select Committee. I am not for one minute suggesting that the members of the Select Committee, who, in my opinion, have done quite a good job, were in any way conscious instruments of Government design. I hope that the House recollects that on 31st July, 1956, when we debated the proposal to refer this matter to the Select Committee, a number of us opposed it very strongly. We claimed that this was a matter of peculiar Scottish interest and that, therefore, it should be sent to a special committee created for the purpose, composed, as I said then, of Scottish Members who knew the Scottish atmosphere and background, instead of being handed over to a Committee which, judging from the questions of some of its members, revealed a somewhat alarming lack of knowledge of the functions of the Scottish Grand Committee. They made their recommendations, however, and I think that they were quite reasonable.
I agree with those about the affirmative Orders and the Motions. I thought that these things were good. They were widening the scope of the Scottish Grand Committee—but they were destroying the arguments of the Tory Members. Those

Members were saying that the Committee had too much work to do already; that too much time was being demanded of them. Then the Select Committee comes along and puts more work on them. It said, "You are now to have affirmative Orders, and you are now to have Motions." That meant more work, and it evidently created a minor revolution in the ranks of the Tory Party.
The result was that the Leader of the House came here today to tell us that he accepted only one of the Select Committee's recommendations—the recommendation to reduce the numbers. But he is to reduce the numbers still further. That is the only thing that the Government are doing—

Sir Peter Macdonald: Jolly good.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member says, "Jolly good." There we have the English attitude revealed by the hon. Member, who, in my experience of the House over twelve years, has never once seen the inside of the Scottish Grand Committee—

Sir P. Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I must contradict the hon. Member. I have been a member of the Scottish Grand Committee on two occasions.

Mr. Rankin: That is not a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I quite agree.

Mr. Rankin: In any event, the hon. Member has just come into the Chamber. He hardly has his nose in before he starts shooting out his neck. I know that that is jumbled, but the two go together, do they not?
The point that I was seeking to make was established by the Leader of the House. He has told us, in effect, that there is only one recommendation that the Government are prepared to accept—that which embodies the primary purpose of reducing the size of the Scottish Standing Committee—they are to leave the Grand Committee alone. I shall not go into that at the moment, but the astonishing thing is that the Government have not a clear mind on the very important suggestion made by the Select Committee that two days should be allowed for Motions.
That is a most important suggestion from this point of view. We know, and none better than the Secretary of State, that the Secretary of State's duties are continually increasing. They have increased under the present Government and, of course, we welcome it in Scotland. Now he has responsibilities for roads and electricity. It seems fairly logical to say that if he is responsible for more work in Scotland, the Opposition should have the right to put down Motions about his responsibilities, to discuss them with him, to question him about them, and to hear what he has to tell us and the country.
At the moment, that is not being done. The Government are saying that they will come to a decision on that as a result of today's debate. I trust that after they have heard what I hope is the unanimous attitude here—that the Secretary of State should be able to give an account of his new stewardships—the Government will recognise the demand coming, I hope, from both sides, that that part of the Select Committee's Report ought to be accepted by the Government.
Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, although they do that, they will not solve the problem that faces them. The problem, basically, is the accumulation of work in the Scottish Grand Committee; and it will not lessen. We have got to solve this problem, but it will not be done by juggling with numbers. That will achieve nothing because, even although the Government may reduce the number in the Scottish Standing Committee to 45 or 30, there will still be, within that 45 or 30, an element of "conscripted" Members; the innocents who come unsuspecting of the dreadful fate which awaits them in the period of initiation. That percentage will still be there, and although some Members may say, "I'm all right"—and I will not use the rest of the phrase, although hon. Members know what I mean—there are others.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) voiced a personal lament about his responsibility. If he gets off under this new arrangement he will not care at all. We shall not escape the problem. Somebody is to pay for those who are released to go about their other duties, and this talk of being prevented from attending the Committee is sheer humbug. Those who have served two

Committees at the same time have carried out their work with reasonable faithfulness. The talk about the disability of Scottish Members who serve the Grand Committee is, in my view, a completely distorted account of what happens in fact.
This problem will not be solved, as I have said, by juggling with numbers. It demands far more wholehearted treatment than that. We shall only solve it when we have a Scottish Parliament which will deal with Scottish affairs. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) has woken up. I was saying that that is the only real solution, because then we shall relieve those hon. Members, on both sides of the House, from duties which may conflict with other and wider demands on their time.
Of course, we have to remember that while the work of the Scottish Grand Committee is piling up, the work of the House in, say, foreign and colonial affairs, and other matters of international significance, is making greater demands on the time of not only English, but also Scottish, right hon. and hon. Members. So, if we are to approach this problem with a determination to secure a lasting solution to it, we shall do it only by a Scottish Parliament dealing with Scottish affairs. After all, there is nothing so revolutionary about that as some hon. Members appear to think, because many of us on this side of the House believe in it. Indeed, it was one of the main fights—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot see anything about that in the Second Report.

Mr. Rankin: I do not want to entrench too far, but we are dealing with the problem, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Ross: If, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will examine the Report you will find that in answer to a question it was suggested by the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) that one of the Bills that would be debatable on the Floor of the House would be a Home Rule Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was in answer to a question. It has nothing to do with the Report.

Mr. Rankin: I thought that all that was contained in the Report and matters relevant to it would be within the competence of the House to debate.
I merely wanted to point out that we are looking for a solution to a difficulty, but it seems to me that we are not going far enough in providing the solution We are only tampering with it. We must deal with it along the Ines that I have been trying to indicate, but which, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you thought I ought not to pursue any further.
We are now entering that portion of the day when, according to the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot), we ought to be at our brightest and best. We are now in the morning, which he loves. He ought to love it more because we are in the very earliest part of the morning and, therefore, on the logic of the right hon. Gentleman, we ought to be at our very brightest and our very best. Nevertheless, I am not going to put that to the test too far.
I propose to draw my remarks to a close because I know that there are still one or two of my hon. Friends who have interesting and useful things to say in the debate. However, I would urge the Government to think again about the recommendations of the Select Committee and not to reject everything except the proposal for a minimum of 30 Members for minor Bills and 50 for major Bills.
Look what happened yesterday morning. If anyone had asked whether the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill was a minor or a major Measure, I think that the answer would have been that it was a minor one. Yet it is of such major significance to Scottish Members that the debate lasted the whole of yesterday morning and is to continue this morning. It might not finish even then, because one or two of us who were prevented by other engagements from being present will try to be there to give the Bill a thorough examination. It might have been decreed that this was a minor Bill and that, therefore, only 30 Members would be on it when it went to Standing Committee, though we would have realised, perhaps, that that was a wrong decision.
The question of having 30, 40 or 50 Members, a variable number, to be decided according to the circumstances of the moment will place all of us in a difficulty. It seems to me that the suggestion of the Select Committee of having a more or less fixed number of 45 or 50 is

a much more sensible one. I hope, therefore, that on the question of numbers the Government will think again. These are important matters, and if we have this reconsideration by the Government there will be a greater chance of support for the change than exists at present on this side of the House.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. John Mackie: It would be out of order to follow the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) into the details of his speech on Scottish Home Rule. I would only say this to him. He showed himself completely out of step with his party in suggesting a separate Parliament for Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: Oh, no.

Mr. Mackie: The only reason that I rise is to ask the Government—and here I am in step with the hon. Member for Govan—to think again about this question. Standing Committees were, to the best of my belief, brought into operation in 1896—sixty years or so ago. At the time there was considerable opposition from hon. Members on both sides of the House, then dominated by a Tory majority much bigger than we enjoy at present. One of my own predecessors in one of the two counties for which I now sit—the right hon. Sir Herbert Maxwell, Member for Wigtownshire—was very much opposed to setting up Standing Committees, and especially the Scottish Grand Committee.
I think that from what we have heard tonight, the results have falsified that right hon. Gentleman's predictions as to what would happen with the setting up of Standing Committees at all, and especially the Scottish Grand Committee. I would go so far as to say that the Scottish Grand Committee has worked tolerably well, and it has to a great extent satisfied public opinion in Scotland that Scottish affairs are not wholly neglected. I say that particularly for the benefit of the hon. Member for Govan who, as I said before, is completely out of step with his own party.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Mr. Mackie: I am not giving way now. I am not saying this out of any factious opposition, but if we agree with this proposal it might be seriously misinterpreted in Scotland. It might be


thought that we are giving way to people who do not much care to attend in the mornings.
I do not want to be like a former Member of this House, now a Member in another place—who would never speak without saying how long he had been in the House, but I am in my twenty-seventh year here, and I have, on the whole, attended with considerable regularity in the Scottish Grand Committee. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), who was Scottish Whip for many years, and who used to whip me on on those mornings and say that I must attend, would agree. Indeed, I was a Member of this House with him long before he attained that exalted station. [Interruption.] I did not hear that remark. I do not know if it was in my favour or against me, but it will not deter me.
It has been said that we were juggling with the figures. We all know perfectly well that there are certain hon. Members for whom it is distasteful or irksome or boring to attend the Scottish Committees, or who may have some other business to attend to. Let them obtain a pair, especially in a Parliament where the numbers on both sides are fairly equally distributed. It is not so bad in this Parliament. It was worse in the last Parliament, and much worse in the Parliament before when the Socialist Government had their majority of 200 reduced to eight. I hope that the Secretary of State will not think that I am being unnecessarily obstructionist, or that I am trying to put a spoke in the proposals. I hope that the Government will think again.
If hon. Members who are on the Scottish Grand Committee, or who are added to it, do not wish to come here, well and good; but it would be a bad thing for Scotland if it went out from this House that we were in any way seeking to absolve ourselves from our necessary duties in the Scottish Grand Committee, which is regarded by many people in Scotland as the one opportunity where this Parliament at Westminster resolves itself more or less into the open forum of discussion for Scottish questions.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I believe that if we have any more debates of this kind, there will be a strong

demand from the English for Scottish home rule in sheer self-defence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have had some measure of support.
I wish to refer to a matter which is mentioned in the Report of the Select Committee, but which did not find much support in the Committee's recommendations. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot), who, we sometimes think, has a mind that is not closed to new ideas, should not have found an opportunity of dealing with the suggestion that was made in the evidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), that Parliamentary Questions should be considered by the Scottish Grand Committee.
I believe that if that idea were considered seriously, it would be adopted. Its effect would be to examine Ministers on the affairs of Scotland and to bring to the forefront all questions that affect the day-to-day life of Scotland. The Scottish Grand Committee and Ministers would be kept in closer touch with the affairs of Scotland and the House of Commons would be relieved of Scottish Questions at Question Time.
It has been pointed out that we have difficulty these days in putting our Questions to the various Scottish Ministers. An important function of Parliamentary life is that if we have opportunities of questioning Ministers, we will be prevented from being ruled too much by the bureaucracy, by the civil servants, and the urgent day-to-day questions that come upon us in the course of events will be kept right to the forefront. If we had, say, an hour of the Scottish Grand Committee once a fortnight that would not be asking too much and there would be no compulsion on those who did not wish to attend—that would prove a useful opportunity for ventilating the grievances of Scotland.
At present, we do not have the opportunity of asking the Minister Questions more than about once in four or five weeks. In these days, when there are new Ministries and enormous numbers of Questions crowd upon us from all parts of the Commonwealth and of the world, the Order Paper of the House of Commons is congested in such a way that day after day we find that Ministers do not


get an opportunity of answering Questions and Members do not get the opportunity of cross-examining Ministers. If the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove presided seriously examined objectively this idea it would find something in it, and all I ask is that the Committee should examine it. I believe that it would revive interest in the Scottish Grand Committee and that the people of Scotland, were this suggestion adopted, would realise that the Grand Committee was in daily touch with public opinion in Scotland.
I have heard it argued that if this suggestion were carried out it would remove Scottish affairs from the Floor of the House. It might do so, but it would give an opportunity in the morning for Scottish affairs to be discussed in much greater detail than it is possible to discuss them on the Floor of the House. Mr. Speaker has to deal with a large number of Questions and he limits supplementary questions in order to allow more Questions to be answered and so allow opportunity to hon. Members to put their Questions which, otherwise, would not be called.
Scottish Members would have far greater opportunity to put their Questions if they were put in Scottish Grand Committee, and other hon. Members would have greater opportunity to put theirs in the House if Scottish Questions were put in Committee. If the Questions could be asked in the Scottish Grand Committee in the early mornings that would give opportunity for the Scottish Press and the Scottish B.B.C. to deal with them much more fully than they do at present.
This may be considered a revolutionary constitutional innovation, but it is a suggestion which will, I believe, sooner or later have to be considered in the interest of making Question Time a real means of examining Ministers. I can understand that Ministers are likely to object to it, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not want to answer Questions too often. Once in five weeks may suit him admirably. Potential Ministers may view the matter in the same way. But there is a large number of Scottish Ministers available—six with the Joint Under-Secretaries of State. It is not asking too much to ask that, say,

once a fortnight we should be able to ask Questions affecting our constituents.
It is said that it takes about twenty years from the time of its ventilation for an idea to become operative in this House. It may be more, but I am putting this idea forward now in the hope that by 1978 a sensible House of Commons will realise that this is a sensible change which is necessary to get Scottish questions discussed as they ought to be discussed here.

12.29 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I should like to join with those hon. Members who have already done so in expressing appreciation of the way the Select Committee did its work and of the work it did, and I would express my appreciation also, of the courtesy and effectiveness of its questioning when I appeared before it to give evidence. It was a very interesting experience. I could not let this opportunity pass without paying a tribute to the work of the Select Committee.
I have listened with the greatest care to everything that has been said throughout the debate, and, what is more, I shall, with my colleagues, carefully study what hon. Members have said when the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate is available.
The purpose of my right hon. Friend's opening speech was to give a fairly clear line on the Government's thinking. I doubt whether I can pick out every point made by the comparatively large number of hon. Members who have spoken, and perhaps the best thing that I can do is to take the subjects of the Report discussed today one by one and make such comments as I can on them in possible clarification or amplification of what my right hon. Friend said.
First, however, it is only right that I should say a few words about points not dwelt upon by more than one or two hon. Members and not particularly affecting Scotland, which has been the main subject of debate. I was glad to note that there seemed to be complete agreement with the new procedure on Amendments on going into Committee of Supply in debates on the Estimates. I took a close interest in the Service Estimates for some years and I always thought that when a debate on an Amendment intervened


round about seven o'clock it took away from the main flow of discussion and very detailed study of the Estimates and was not of great help. I think that everybody welcomes the change.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) made some comments on Money Resolutions. I assure him again, as my right hon. Friend said, that we realise what was said in 1937 and we reaffirm that as far as is consistent with our obligation to Government, we will see that there is fair play in the way in which these things are handled. The hon. Member raised big constitutional issues. He said that the present practice was a historical survival, but I think that it is much more than that.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not read too much into that phrase. I said that the form in which we put Financial Resolutions is historical and formal rather than substantially justified. I believe that we should keep the same substance but have a different form, which would ease things in discussion.

Mr. Maclay: I will note carefully what the hon. Member has said.
There is little that I can add on the quorum and the Closure. There is apparently very general agreement that the Select Committee's proposals are reasonable and proper. I have noted carefully what certain hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), said on that subject. I assure him, incidentally, that far from disliking his presence on the Scottish Grand Committee, we welcome him, and hope that we may see him again.

Mr. T. Fraser: It was rather different in the Committee on a Private Member's Bill.

Mr. Maclay: I was not present at that Committee and, therefore, I cannot deal with what was said there.
The recommendation of the Select Committee that affirmative Orders
applying exclusively to Scotland for which, in general, no comparable Orders have been, or are likely to be, tabled for England and Wales.
might appropriately be referred to the Scottish Standing Committee raises a very important principle. To make a change

would require substantial reasons and evidence of clear advantage.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman make clear the distinction between an affirmative Order, a Statutory Instrument and a Bill, except that a Statutory Instrument is not subject to amendment? It is a piece of legislation in the same way as a Bill. The Select Committee could not see any distinction between the one and the other.

Mr. Maclay: The Select Committee referred to the Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation, in 1953, which decided that the reference of Statutory Instruments to a Standing Committee was not a feasible procedure. The Committee went on to say that there might be an exception made in the case of Orders which were exclusively Scottish. As my right hon. Friend said, the fact is that careful examination has shown there are virtually none which could be said to come within the category described and, in those circumstances, I do not think it justifiable to make what would be a very important change in the procedure of the House which would have a negligible effect in practice. For that reason, we do not feel that the proposal can be accepted.

Mr. Ross: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman's memory is good. There is a Bill before the Scottish Grand Committee to be discussed in principle. Can he tell me whether there is an affirmative condition in relation to any of the Orders under that Bill? At present, the House has delegated to the Committee the consideration of a Bill in principle. Within that Bill there is a demand that before a certain thing be done, an affirmative Order be presented to the House. Why is it that we should consider that Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee on Second Reading, yet be denied the right to deal with the affirmative Order when it comes along?

Mr. Maclay: I should not like to say, without a check, what is in the Bill.
If we examine what has happened over many years, it is difficult to find anything which would come within the category mentioned. The hon. Member will accept that it would be a major change of procedure, and unless there are substantial advantages to come from such a change.


I do not think that it would be wise to make the alteration.
I come now to the remarks of a number of hon. Members about the two days for Motions. I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) for giving us the benefit of his experience both in the House and in the Scottish Grand Committee, and on the several matters he spoke about, particularly this one. What he said about affirmative Resolutions represents views which we should not lightly ignore.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman came to this conclusion on affirmative Resolutions when under a complete misapprehension about what was proposed?

Mr. J. Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman should not misquote me. I said that I fell back on what the Leader of the House said.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the Minister why he prefers the conclusions of the former Select Committee on Procedure, of which I was also a member, to the conclusions reached on this occasion by the Committee of which his right hon. Friend and himself were both members and which reached wiser conclusions? Is he aware that the Clerk of the House, giving evidence before the former Committee, actually commended this procedure as a way of relieving, the pressure of business in the House?

Mr. Maclay: I can only repeat that when one searches back one finds very few Orders which would have come within the category which the Select Committee wanted. It would be unwise to move into such a complete change of procedure for a very doubtful advantage. I will certainly listen to what has been said and continue to consider the matter.
As to the two days for Motions, the balance of argument has been fairly well put during the debate. I should not like tonight to commit myself to what will happen. We will carefully consider what has been said by various hon. Members on both sides of the House and take into consideration the different points of view expressed about the desirability of having two extra days for Motions.
Some concern was expressed about the problem that we have met in the Scottish Standing Committee with regard to the days on Estimates, and remarks were made about the desirability of being able to substitute Motions. The Government's difficulty arises partly on the constitutional grounds which led to the reference of Bills to the Scottish Grand Committee for consideration in relation to their principle and not for Second Reading, and that is to preserve contact with the control of the House.
Motions, with possible Amendments thereto, might give rise to difficulties. It may be that the problem could be solved by the reference of subjects for consideration by the Scottish Grand Committee. There again, to the extent that these impinged on the responsibility of other Ministers and were not clearly covered by a Vote for which I as Secretary of State am responsible, there would be the difficulty that the United Kingdom Minister concerned would not be a member of the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Ross: Make him an added member.

Mr. Maclay: It would be an interesting experiment. In these circumstances, I cannot give any undertakings on the matter, but the Government will look closely at it, giving due weight to the opinions expressed, because I know the difficulties we have encountered.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one of his hon. Friends is not a member of the Standing Committee which is now dealing with a Scottish Bill, but he was made an added member of the Committee. That could easily be done in the case we are discussing.

Mr. Maclay: Add a United Kingdom Minister?

Mr. Ross: Yes.

Mr. Maclay: I cannot say more on the matter than I have said tonight, but we all know that we have the difficulty of finding a means of getting precisely the form of debate on the Estimates that we want. We shall continue to examine the problem.
Turning to the question of the composition of the Standing Committee, while views have been expressed which make it


seem that there is a substantial difference between the different points of view, it really is a relatively narrow difference. It seems to be accepted by almost all hon. Members who have spoken that it is not practicable on every occasion for every Scottish Member to attend the Scottish Standing Committee. It is really a question of how to get the most sensible solution to ensure an adequate and proper number being present for the business which they want to put through. There does not seem to me to be a great difference between the extreme views expressed. The Select Committee's proposal comes between the two extremes.

Mr. Ross: Accept the compromise.

Mr. Maclay: I wish to recapitulate, and possibly expand a little, some of the arguments which led us to indicate our view about the Select Committee's proposals. As regards the changes for which the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was responsible in 1947 and 1948, every member of the Scottish Grand Committee agreed, and still agrees, that the changes have been a real advantage.

Mr. Ross: That is not true.

Mr. Maclay: No change was then made in the composition of the Committee, although at the time the size of the United Kingdom Committees was considerably reduced. The result of the change made in 1948 has been that, with debates on the principles of Bills and the six Supply days added to the steady flow of Committee work going to the Scottish Standing Committee, there is no denying that the demand on the time of Scottish Members for purely Scottish matters has substantially increased.
What follows is very important and refers to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). It is important to remember that it is only since the war that the practice has developed—after another Report, made in 1945 and implemented a little later—of sending practically all Bills, other than those dealing with constitutional and money matters, to Standing Committees. There has been a substantial change in the practice of the House since the war.
The Scottish Grand Committee existed long before then and certain Bills were sent to it, but the whole theory of the working of the House has changed since

before the war, and the Government's attitude to the Report of the Select Committee is to carry the evolution another useful stage further.
The demands on the time of all Scottish Members for purely Scottish matters has increased considerably, and as an illustration of this it might be useful if I gave some figures. According to the return for the Sessions 1956–57, the total summonses for Standing Committees A, B, C and D was 4,570. Dividing this by the number of English, Welsh and Northern Ireland Members, it appears that these Members were each summoned on average eight times. On the other hand, last Session the total summonses to attend the Scottish Standing Committee were 2,106. Dividing this by the number of Scottish Members, the average number of summonses per Member was 30. These figures cannot be completely accurate, but they offer a reasonably good guide to the difficulty facing Scottish Members.
In other words, this broadly amounts to the fact that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies are called, on average, about four times as often as are Members representing non-Scottish constituencies for Committee work.

Mr. Walter Elliot: Scottish Members are also frequently summoned to the other five standing Committees, which means that the figure is higher than 30. They are summoned to all Scottish Committees and also to some of the other Committees.

Mr. Maday: I entirely agree.

Mr. T. Fraser: The summonses to the other Committees are surely included in the 30.

Mr. Maclay: No.

Mr. Fraser: The Scottish Committee met on only 26 occasions last year. If the average number of summonses was 30, that figure must include summonses to other Standing Committees.

Mr. Maclay: This was the only way to give the figures, and even this may be a little confusing. This is the total of all summonses divided by the total of hon. Members concerned. I think that the hon. Member will find that the result is accurate.
It is extremely important that Scottish Members should be able to play their appropriate part in the affairs of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Ross: We must clear this matter up. If we had only 26 summonses individually, the Minister must have taken the total number of summonses for the Scottish Grand Committee and divided them by the number of Scottish Members, forgetting to include the added Members. The figures are wrong.

Mr. J. Stuart: Perhaps my right hon. Friend did not include the sittings to debate the Estimates in his total number of meetings.

Mr. Maclay: I worked the figure out very carefully, and if I find anything wrong then I will let hon. Members know what it is. Whatever the figure, and even if we make the adjustments suggested, there is still a big preponderance of demands on the time of Scottish Members compared with the demands on the time of other hon. Members. The trouble with figures is that one can sometimes work them out in so many different ways, and get some very curious results. But nobody will deny the very big preponderance of the demands on the time of Scottish Members for Committee work.
As I have said, the really important thing is that there should be time for Scottish Members to play their part in the normal work of the United Kingdom Parliament, and I do really suggest that the argument that there is something subtle or unseen in the reasons for our views on this side has no justification. The argument about whether hon. Members should be able to do work outside the House does not belong to this particular context. The whole case revolves around whether or not Scottish Members, tied so tightly as they are today to this Scottish Committee, can do their duties as United Kingdom as well as Scottish Members.
The Select Committee has accepted the principle that there may properly be a differentiation between the Scottish Grand Committee sitting to consider the principle of a Bill, to consider Motions—if we decide to have these—and Supply Days, when the Committee would properly be composed of all Scottish

Members, and the same Committee dealing with the Committee stages of Bills. The Select Committee has accepted the desirability of differentiation.
The Government's view is that there should be a limit to the number which may be appointed to the new proposed Scottish Standing Committee. The Select Committee recommended that it should be left to the Committee of Selection to add further members, to a basic figure of 45, in accordance with the special qualifications and wishes of Members, and to ensure a due balance of the parties. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir R. Conant), who is Chairman of the Committee of Selection, said this afternoon—and I agree with him—it does seem to make the work of the Committee of Selection very difficult indeed, particularly as the Select Committee clearly feels that it is desirable to distinguish between the full Scottish Grand Committee, in its capacity of dealing with Estimates, and so on, and when dealing with the Committee stages of Bills.
I think that there is real substance in what my hon. Friend said: that the members of the Committee of Selection would be put in an almost impossible position if they had themselves to make up their minds as to whether there were valid reasons for adding this or that hon. Member. The result might be that we should get back to what the Select Committee itself does not want, I understand—going back to the full Scottish Grand Committee for the consideration of Bills at the Committee stage.
What we really suggest here, and I do not think we need be ashamed about it, is that we might do well to follow the practice, now well tried, of other Standing Committees. We have suggested a figure varying between 30 and 50. It is very seldom that the present minimum figure of 20—which I believe, is the minimum at the moment for other Standing Committees—is used. We have the figure of 30 in mind as being the figure nearer to what might be the absolute minimum for a Committee sitting on a very small Bill. I am advised, however, that it is only very seldom that even the smallest Bill goes to a Committee of fewer than 35 or 40 members. We have made it clear that the extra members on the Committee


should not bring the number to more than 45 or 50—

Mr. Woodburn: With respect, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated the point made by myself, and more firmly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot). At present, when the full Committee discusses an important Bill practically no time is taken in the House on the Report stage—the Amendments have been thoroughly exhausted in the Committee—but if a large number of interested Members are excluded from it then, obviously, on Report, they will exercise their opportunity to move Amendments. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the importance of the time-table of the House and not push back on to the House work that is now effectively done in Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Maclay: I have noted that point. It was raised when we had our discussion with the Select Committee. I have never been quite convinced that the difference between 45 to 50 and 71 could make all that difference to the Report stage, but we shall give careful thought to that aspect of the matter. I do not think that there is anything much more that I can usefully say on the question of the composition; but I re-stress the immediate problems which have been mentioned all through this fairly lengthy debate. They are problems which have great importance. For example, the position of a junior Minister has been mentioned, and it is a serious complication if he is automatically on the Scottish Grand Committee.
Then there was the question of delegations abroad. Those are not, as some people tend to think, junketing expeditions. They are serious undertakings and are an important part of an hon. Member's duty, and Scottish Members should be able to be considered freely as possible starters, whether it is for a

journey to Strasbourg or anywhere else, without it being continually necessary to keep a watch on whether such selection will upset the balance of figures on the Grand Committee.
I would just quote my own experience of a genuine case where a certain hon. Member could not be put up for selection—although a most useful Member—because of the complication of numbers. There really is a good deal of reason for our attitude towards having a maximum number which should not be exceeded.
The problem of questions was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and touched upon by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. It is a matter which has been raised from time to time in the past, and, although I do not want to start on more statistics, I would remind the House that those who have feelings about this subject, and think that there seem invariably to be several weeks between the opportunity for "getting at" Scottish Ministers, should think only of recent months.
We were third and second on the list, and a large number of questions were reached. They were the two Tuesdays before the Recess, and we were top of the list when the House resumed. The fact is that if one takes the statistics which are available it will be found that, over the years, we have had a fait good showing: we have had a fairly good share of the time. It would be a very big procedural departure to take questions anywhere away from the floor of the House.
I have tried to cover as much of the debate as I can and I close by saying that we ought to weigh carefully all the considerations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the First and Second Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session of Parliament.

Orders of the Day — THE EARL OF BALFOUR (MONUMENT)

Resolution reported,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster at the public charge to the memory of the late Right Honourable The Earl of Balfour, K.G., O.M., with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by this House of the eminent services rendered by him to the Country and to the Commonwealth and Empire in Parliament, and in great Offices of State, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

Resolution agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (PURCHASING PROCEDURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

12.59 a.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: This is an Adjournment debate about railways, and I should like, at the start, to say that our thoughts turn tonight to all those involved in the serious accident which took place a few hours ago.
I have sought this debate to raise the issue of the purchasing procedure of the British Transport Commission for three principal reasons which I wish to discuss. First, I do not believe that justice has been fully done to my constituent, Mr. Gethin, whose charges were the basis of the investigation which was made by Sir Harold Howitt. Secondly, I do not believe it is possible to over-emphasise the cautionary tales which can be drawn from the report of the investigation. Thirdly, although I believe that much good has already come from the report, there is still more to be done.
Mr. Gethin was the chief contracts adviser to the British Transport Commission for almost two years. After his departure from the Commission he cited a number of important cases in which he thought that the Commission has purchased unwisely. As the Commission was engaged on a modernisation programme, involving the expenditure of some £1,200 million, this was obviously a matter of national importance.
Sir Harold Howitt investigated these charges, and we should be grateful to him for, in his own words,
setting out the relevant facts in some detail so that they may speak for themselves.
The narrative that he has written has been of great value, even if at times he has seemed to make two and two equal five, which is an odd action for a distinguished accountant.
Many informed commentators, notably The Times and the Financial Times, believe that Sir Harold Howitt has been rather less than fair with Mr. Gethin, that, in fact, the narrative supports Mr. Gethin rather more than Sir Harold will allow. Indeed, in the words of Mr. R. J.


Mitchell, the President of the Purchasing Officers' Association:
there is a general feeling, which many of us share, that Sir Harold's findings hardly do justice to Mr. Gethin.
Mr. Gethin made four minor allegations, if one can call them that. Sir Harold has had some rather sharp comments to make about many of them, noticeably that of the replacement of the s.s. "Dinard", which was originally supposed to have cost just over £1 million and, in the end, cost more than £11 million. Sir Harold has made certain strictures, even if they are not always clearly expressed.
Mr. Gethin made three main charges: first, about signalling; secondly, about overhead electrification; and, thirdly, about the provision of vacuum brake cylinders. Sir Harold has found, certainly in the first two of these cases—signalling and overhead electrification—that no money was wasted. Of course, if one asks only one firm to tender and does not call for competitive tenders, it is quite impossible to prove that any money spent has been wasted.
But it is interesting to note that the efficiency of the financial safeguards imposed by the Transport Commission can he checked, because there is the case of the vacuum brake cylinders. On 23rd April the Commission's Supply Committee agreed that the Westinghouse Brake Company should supply 500,000 of these cylinders, and the price was to be just over £30 apiece. There then followed a period of controversy, and the British Motor Corporation was brought into the field. The Corporation offered to supply cylinders at £21 14s. 8d. apiece. Westinghouse then lowered its price to £23. It is possible to believe that Westinghouse would have lowered its price without this spur of competition, because it was bringing in new manufacturing processes, and it is impossible to believe that the moon is made of Gruyère cheese.
The British Transport Commission's Financial Department had agreed that £30 was a fair price far these vacuum brake cylinders, and when the British Motor Corporation bid came in the Commission decided to inquire of the Corporation to find out whether it really was possible to produce these vacuum brake cylinders at the price offered—to quote
to satisfy ourselves that they can, in fact, produce a cylinder for the price quoted.

This is the only case in which it is possible to check the efficiency of the Commission's financial safeguards, and I do not believe that in this instance they have proved to be efficient. I hesitate to follow Sir Harold in his belief that they have worked in signalling and in overhead electrification.
Now to the future. The new British Transport Commission purchasing directive is an improvement on the old one, but, as Sir Harold says, everything depends on the spirit in which it is implemented. It is common knowledge that in many big industrial firms there is a clash between the engineering men on the technical side and the contract or purchasing side. There is always bound to be. The engineers are interested in fancy, specifications. The contracts men are interested primarily in costs, and they believe in competitive tenders. In this situation an effective contracts officer is almost bound to have his run-in with the engineers, and I believe that this is what has happened in the British Transport Commission. I believe that Mr. Gethin, who is a trained engineer, was sacked because various engineers were tired of what they considered to be his meddling and interference in their traditional preserves. They did not like the new methods that he was trying to introduce and they threatened to resign if he was not sacked.
In a normal profit-making firm the contracts officer can count on the cooperation of the board of directors, because they are interested in saving all the money that they can. In a nationalised industry, of course, the members of the board are interested in not wasting money, but they are not so immediately, personally involved as people in a private firm. Therefore, in a nationalised industry it is particularly important that the contracts officer should have all the help that he can get.
Will the fate of Mr. Gethin encourage his successors to stand up to the engineers? What will happen if they do? Will they get a handshake from Sir Brian Robertson, or an illuminated address or a pat on the back from the Parliamentary Secretary, or will they get the sack? Mr. Gethin got the sack.
How can we strengthen the hand of the contracts officer? I would like to see the


establishment of a small board of outside auditors who would, at irregular intervals, descend on the various nationalised industries to check the procedure and practice of contracting. Perhaps even one man could do the job. The establishment of an external watchdog would have one further benefit. At the moment, manufacturers who deal much with a nationalised industry are inhibited from complaining when they think they have been unfairly treated. They are frightened of making a fuss, because they think that they will lose what business they have. The appointment of one small poodle of a watchdog would give them an additional means of access and an additional avenue of complaint.
Of course, the key to all this is competitive tendering. It has often been said that the Transport Commission departs from competitive tendering only with the greatest reluctance, but in 1956, when £120 million was spent, only 41 per cent. of this amount went out to competitive tendering. That is clearly not good enough. It is the secret allocated contract which is the root of this evil. Let us, at best, have a watchdog committee. Let us, at second best, have just one watchdog. At third best, let us have a rule that all allocated contracts should be made public with the accounts each year. This would be a poor check, but it would be better than no check at all.
I close with some more words by the President of the Purchasing Officers' Association:
By sacrificing his personal security in order to protect the national interests, Mr. Gethin has earned the respect of all. What a pity his intervention was needed before the Transport Commission started to put its house in order.

1.13 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I rise at this early hour of the morning to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), but may I first respond to his opening remark and say this about the very serious railway accident which occurred this evening. I am not yet able to give an official account or details of what has taken place, but reports indicate that the toll of dead and injured is heavy—perhaps very

heavy. I take this, the earliest opportunity, to express, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and myself, my deep sympathy with the relatives and friends of those involved. In the meantime, I am assured that everything possible is being done to deal with the very difficult problems involved on the site.
My hon. Friend has raised the problems that arose during the summer, which were dealt with by Sir Harold Howitt in his report, and he has raised a number of points in his speech with which I should like to deal. The last point raised by my hon. Friend was that there should be some sort of watchdog with power to look into the affairs of the Transport Commission. I say this to him, that at the present time my right hon. Friend is responsible to Parliament for the broad policy and action of the Commission. Once a year the Commission presents its Annual Report, which is debated here and can be studied in detail by hon. and right hon. Members of this House. That gives an opportunity for reviewing what the Commission is doing. In addition to that there is the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries, which can, of course, look into many aspects of its activities. These are very substantial safeguards and inform Parliament of what the Commission is doing, and, in my opinion, they are quite adequate.
My hon. Friend started with the contention that Sir Harold Howitt was less than fair to Mr. Gethin in his Report. I really think there is very little if any independent evidence to support that allegation. Sir Harold Howitt had complete freedom to investigate any aspect he thought necessary within his terms of reference. He is completely independent. Indeed, the general impression his Report has made is an impression of impartiality and thoroughness.
I understand that Sir Harold Howitt turned on to the job of this investigation about 14 of his own staff, and that they were working for eight weeks on this exclusively; that during that period, as well as studying a great many papers, they interviewed 40 responsible officials apart from the many personal contacts they had. Indeed, the Report makes it quite plain that a very thorough, careful check was done. At the end of it the Report gave, to the benefit of this House and the public, Sir Harold Howitt's own


very expert judgment, as a very experienced public man and a very experienced accountant, of the balance of the information which his investigations had produced.
It is a matter of opinion whether one agrees with it or not, and it is for each one of us to decide, but my hon. Friend is taking on himself a very big responsibility in conflicting with these views, reached by Sir Harold Howitt and quite obviously generally accepted throughout the country. Sir Harold Howitt had the benefit of a complete investigation, carried out thoroughly and impartially, and, having collected all the information he thought necessary, he then reached the findings which were put in his report.

Mr. Goodhart: As I have indicated, my views are shared by the President of the Purchasing Officers' Association, which is the recognised professional body.

Mr. Nugent: The President of the Purchasing Officers' Association is perfectly entitled to his view, but, of course, it is a view naturally sympathising with another purchasing officer, and I really cannot find it in my mind to agree that he is in a better position than Sir Harold Howitt to judge just where the right balance lies in these matters, and I believe very few other people will either.
The report shows that during Mr. Gethin's two years' service, or just under two years' service, he did, of course, make a useful contribution to the development of the right solution to this complex problem. He was a senior official highly paid to do just this. He did it, and, indeed, it would have been very surprising if he had not, and Sir Harold Howitt in his report gives him credit for it. Along with the Commission and other responsible officials he helped to secure competition and lower prices on the Westinghouse vacuum brake problem and to develop a stronger organisation for purchasing and contracting.
I do not propose to go into detail on the vacuum brake problem or other problems, but once again I rely on the comment that I have just made that Sir Harold had no other purpose but to make a completely impartial and independent report. He gave us the benefit of that report after very careful investigation. It would need extremely

strong evidence to show that his report was either unfair or unsound. Although my hon. Friend draws a conclusion from the Westinghouse incident that Sir Harold was unsound on the overhead electrification and signalling cases.
It is not easy to decide when contracts are allocated instead of being competed for. One can only decide by collecting facts and by an expert man carefully reviewing the evidence. Sir Harold Howitt gave us the benefit of that. In the end, this is a matter for each one of us to decide whether we agree or not, but without supporting evidence, which has not yet appeared, it is very difficult indeed to reach the conclusion that Sir Harold was wrong. On the Westinghouse incident I would say only that Sir Harold concludes in paragraph 79 by saying:
I do think, having regard to the amount involved and the urgency of the programme insufficient effort was made by the staff concerned "—
which includes Mr. Gethin—
prior to the meeting of the Supply Committee on 21st April to explore alternative source-of supply.
Therefore, it was quite evident that in Sir Harold's view there could have been greater effort before. But let us be clear that at that April meeting Mr. Gethin rightly, because it was his job, called the attention of the Committee to the need to look beyond the traditional suppliers, and three days later the Commission itself was deciding something very much on the same lines. In the ensuing months, not only Mr. Gethin but Mr. Hanks, a member of the Commission, and other officers were actively engaged in following the matter up to see what competitive tenders could be obtained.

Mr. Goodhart: Mr. Goodhart rose—

Mr. Nugent: I have only four minutes left, and I want to deal with one or two other points which my hon. Friend has raised.
It was quite clear in the final result of the vacuum brake incident that although Mr. Gethin played a useful part in it, and a part that one would expect him to play, it was by no means by his responsibility alone that competition was obtained in due course.
The question of the relationship between purchasing engineers and staffs is a common problem in industry as well as on the railways, and it is a particularly


difficult one. The history in the Commission is that in 1955, before Mr. Gethin arrived, the Commission had started reviewing the purchasing procedure. It knew it had a difficult problem, and, indeed, the appointment of Mr. Gethin was one way in which it was hoped to deal with the problem. He was included with the committee of senior officers which reported in October, 1956—the "Blue Report" which has been referred to and which was supported by Mr. Gethin. After much deliberation the Commission finally decided to produce a new supplies organisation in May, 1957, resulting in August, 1957, in the directive which provided for the appointment of a chief contracts officer laying down the relationship with technical departments and his duties. In paragraph 49 of the Report Sir Harold Howitt quotes that Mr. Gethin broadly agreed with this.
The chief contracts officer was appointed two months ago and is making good progress. He is establishing good relationships and a uniformity of contractual practice. Normally tenders are competitive, but where that is not the case and contracts have to be allocated, special financial safeguards are required, and it has been his responsibility to define them. Allocated contracts of over £100,000 the Commission must approve, and when they are under £100,000 either the Works and Equipment Committee or the area board approves.
There will always be some occasions when it is in the interest of the railways, as indeed with other big industrial and commercial units, for contracts to be placed without competition. It is the exception, but inevitably it arises sometimes in particular, with the modernisation of the railways when time has been such an important factor, and still is. The balance of advantage then has justified the placing of contracts by allocation and not by competitive tender. The decision as to whether or not that should be done must lie with the Commission. To limit its discretion or require special reports would undoubtedly reduce its competitive ability.
These matters are essentially within the scope of the day-to-day management of the Commission, that is to say, they are matters for the Commission and not for my right hon. Friend or for Parliament. So I must reject the suggestion of my hon. Friend that this new control should be created. A progress officer is in the course of being appointed. A production officer will be appointed in a few months when the Commission has completed its present review of production policy. This will give the necessary officers the authority about which my hon. Friend is concerned. They will have direct access to the Commission and also the right of access to the Chairman himself. That should provide a complete safeguard against the possibility about which my hon. Friend is anxious that they will not have the necessary authority and influence to cope with the very influential technical and engineering departments.
Regarding the comments of my hon. Friend about the "sacking" of Mr. Gethin, we must be clear that he left the Commission by agreement. Mr. Gethin has never made any complaint about that in public or in any other way. He left on an agreed basis and said so publicly in an agreed statement with the Commission. It was not until after he had left that he made his allegations about the Commission, and, therefore, the implications made by my hon. Friend that the Commission "sacked" him because of some clash is completely without foundation and I am surprised at my hon. Friend for making them.
The effect of my hon. Friend's suggestion would be to increase the control and direction of the Commission from the centre. I believe this is fundamentally wrong.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past One o'clock.